[ExI] Wondering if we'd be Better Off with Fewer People

Lee Corbin lcorbin at rawbw.com
Tue Jul 1 15:10:09 UTC 2008


Samantha writes

> Of course we (as a species, nothing personal)  usually are [sanguine] as long as  
> the dying is somewhere else.    I have heard too many educated and  
> generally caring people banter the notion that the world would be  
> better off with around 90% less people.

I posit that in their imaginings they're not in the 90%.

> They entertain this notion without admitting the horrors of getting
> there and while they insist they are not promoting mass death.

You have to break a few eggs to get an omelet, as they've
been saying for well over a century.

I'm with those who think the world is vastly underpopulated,
and hope that various breakthoughs in coming years make
it really obvious to everyone that many, many more people
can be sustained than at present. Before colonizing space,
humans could colonize the ocean bottoms, and before doing
that, colonize antarctica and the deserts, and before that,
the swamps.  The only problem is that living in these places
is just not as much fun, and that's why in the U.S. many of
the middle states are losing population.

Lee




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list