Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Why is "stable society" the end goal?

I don't even know what you mean by that. Divorce rates have skyrocketed, and likewise women trapped in DV situations unable to leave has dropped considerably.

Today is far more urban than the US I grew up in. And organized religion is far less popular.

Population hasn't been stable since at least the invention of steam engines.

Etc.

I don't want "stable"; I want "safe". I want the next generation to live in a world that is AT LEAST as safe as this one, healthwise, likelihood of war, crimewise... and really I want better on all of those. As my childhood time vastly improved on the early 20th-C when my parents were kids.



Stable in terms of population, not all of the stuff you're talking about.


Why is a stable population good or desirable?


First, we categorically lack the technology for wide-scale colonization of space or other planets. Second, no matter how much people like to deny it, the Earth does have some finite carrying capacity. We can argue indefinitely about what exactly that carrying capacity is, but it exists. It follows from those two facts that unbounded population growth is not possible. A continually shrinking population eventually leads to extinction, thus leaving a stable population as the only option that doesn't lead to either extinction or widespread chaos and calamity.

It's not really clear to me what the point of this question is. Are you advocating for infinite growth? For eventual extinction? Perhaps for a slow, long-term contraction but not extinction (i.e. eventual stability)? The latter is certainly what makes the most sense to me, but I'm just some random guy on the internet.


> It's not really clear to me what the point of this question is. Are you advocating for infinite growth? For eventual extinction?

Am I allowed to ask a question without having an agenda? What’s with the hostility?


No hostility intended. No human being is a completely blank slate. Asking such an open ended question on an internet forum strongly implies that you disagree with the premise of the person you're responding to. Explaining if/how/why you disagree can lead to a more productive conversation.


I don’t disagree though so why would I describe something that doesn’t exist?

You are the one advocating for a stable population. The responsibility is on you to support that position.


Because exponential implosion and an inversion of the demographic pyramid cannot result in a safe, prosperous, healthy, or wealthy society.


Right now you are supporting an elderly retired person along with four others in the economy.

When you retire there will only be two. Expect less than half the care, because automation of elderly care is more expensive than a person.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: