Where did ryan got the whole depopulation idea from? where did this joke come from?

Level1Techs INBOX.deb
1

like, I’ve only ever heard this whole depopulation thing from Ryan’s mouth… and he keeps banging on about it, did I miss some kinda inside joke?

The world could have 20 billion africans and will still be fine, we don’t have a population problem, where’s the punchline? Or is it depopulation of America? I mean I’m from Britain, so I thought I’d recognise dark humour, but I don’t see the punch line when it’s not even close to anything….

it really bothers me when he’s been saying depopulation for ages, and i’m not really privvy about the joke

2 Likes
2

You answered your own question. The world can sustain 20 billion people at a 3rd world or less standard of living. If you want to maintain a comfortable lifestyle then you can’t have 20 billion consumers.

5 Likes
3

Ryan has a slightly nihilistic conservative bent. But Yes he/you are right, the world could sustain much bigger populations at a substance level, or we need to reduce the population assuming everyone wants a western standard of living.

Now if we can get our asses into space and build up space industry then we can more or less grow indefinitely.

1 Like
4

Plenty of space left here on earth. We just need tech and energy. Earth has all we need.

3 Likes
5

Ah, there’s the bi-monthly Ryan hurts my feelings post.

image

Anyone that thinks the concept of depopulation is a joke that Ryan came up with for the L1News has obviously never voiced their ideas on anything other than a political echo chamber. It’s not some new or novel idea. I’m not saying you’re not welcome to, but the forums are not one, so be prepared for dissenting opinions.

I look forward to seeing how long this thread goes for before it goes out of control and gets locked lol

6 Likes
6

Honest question; how much propellant does it take to get each person in to space? And then the supplies they need to survive?

I really don’t think space is viable to move a mass of people.

Seeding a new colony, sure, and even giving it resources to get started.

But a whole population? I don’t think we got the resources to manage that.

And a colony would need to be stablished with a eco system, and sustainable plant growth, so definitely in the decades timescale, once begun?
As in, not in our life times.

All we could do in our life time, is but our kids time, but reducing resource use in the short time, specifically among the most wasteful people who use a dis proportionate amour of the resources.

I kinda think Dan Browns silly idea of inferno would have been the humane way to buy humanity time to get space developed

7

Right now its about $0.5m per person today, but assuming (god I hate talking about them) spaceX gets starship going they expect that to go down to about $10/kg or under $1000 a person.

The reality is that if we reinvested the worlds resources away from arbitrary lines in the dirt and all the military hardware that is used to secure those lines we could jump-start space industry.

Move a few comets into orbit around earth and we can mine water non stop. Second making metals on the moon using a nuclear generates O2 as a byproduct.

1 Like
8

but we don’t we don’t even need to scale back that much of consumerism… just back to 70s levels of consumerism. anyways, ok, he’s not saying it as a joke, it’s just that he’s misinformed.

most people on the earth don’t yearn to be stuck in traffic all day, spend the precious weekends maintaining their lawns, and be fat.

but maybe that’s debatable.

anyways, thanks

9

no, i just genuinely don’t know where did this come from, i’ve lived in many countries, 2 eastern asian ones, and a few european ones. never have i came across this depopulation thing in any of the countries… most of the countries are still looking to grow, not depopulate, any political side, and if there’s another one.

so, genuine question, where did this come from? is it a limited American thing? by the sounds of it, you seem to say it like it’s been here for a few decades already. but i thought america has still not reached a consensus on climate change.

so what was the goal of depopulation back in the 2000s? 90s? i’m intrigued, so many questions…

10

I am very much okay with everyone having their own opinion, would just be nice to have some sort of idea where that opinion comes from. Give some context to the various statements.
Which in Ryans case, is extremely difficult from a European/German view point.

2 Likes
11

Aspects of the concept are tied to Eugenics, Nazis, and the environmental movement from the 60’s.

Eugenicists and Nazis wanted to remove “others” or breed them out to reduce the population.

Environmentalists wanted to reduce the population to reduce the damage humans do to the world.

1 Like
12

I thought their “demand” was to stop setting fire to the carpet we are all standing on.

2 Likes
13

Guess I should add “Some”

14

ya, i was just gonna say that, the enviromentalist movement starting from the 60s were always so far left field no one ever paid attention to them, or mostly just laughed out of the stage, let alone mass murder…

eugenices & nazis, that i understand, i understand their desire to kill certain races. but i don’t follow from black and jews to killing americans exclusively, any links?

1 Like
15

Lots of it is related to Green-washing and Aristocratic/oligarchic fascists who want to maintain their control on wealth using environmentalism to justify some unfortunate views.

To be clear, Ryan is discussing this ironically because he finds the idea offensive as well. He also sees it as Ironic because he does believe that there is a upper carrying capacity for the planet.

I would say try to hear the sad irony in his statements.

4 Likes
16

ok, so like, i should take it as if a french aristocrat saying that france need to disappear to fix the problem of stupid peasants mobs thinking that the world could run without them, and it’s the mob mentality that is taken over the country.

17

To me population is part of the “tree falling in the forest” thought experiment.

If the tree falls and your property is now there its a problem for you. The pop. growth in SoCal has pushed people more and more out into places to have trees fall on them. Since the “internet” is the immediate outrage claxton everyone immediatly knows about it.

All the long droughts, the flash floods, the movement of sediment and cutting of banks, the big bloom and subsequent death of all the desert plants in a matter of weeks leaving them ready for…fire.
These things all happen whether theres people living here or not.

Then theres the earthquakes. Id wager there isnt more than 50% of SoCal that has a serious prep plan for an eq. Even after lockdowns encouraged people to prep a couple weeks ahead.

This is a tough planet to live on. No one is guaranteed anything and it trys to kill you. 70% of it will drown you and if you swim well the hypothermia will take care of you.

18

Really?

No its not a joke and yes it look like the only 100% assured way to solve the planets problems. This has been a theory for a very long time now.

We are not overpopulated technically, just the way we distribute that population is vastly unsustainable and the only solution is less people.

Either space them out evenly and make them more self sufficient

Or get rid of a large population %.

Having read more of your replies. As above technically we are fine but the way we want to take thing from one place, refine them, process them, move them around 3 or 4 times and then use them is so innefficient it is not sustainable.

As for the 00s and 90s they looked forward and projected population growth, and saw it was coming. That is fairly standard in lots of lines of business, extrapolating growth, in this case it was extrapolating population growth.

This has been known, China for a long time had a 1 child policy by law because of this exact problem, now they have brought them selves up in standard and are back to the regular life like us and lots in densly populated cities. They got to the point they could live like us stupid westerners and allowed it because it was possible.

The rest of the world is coming to the poimt where popualtion increase is outpacing job availablility, pay, housing, transport and basic things like food and water.

On that last point I am sure I will get a will smith meme gesturing to a walmart or something full of food. Which is true but just because there is lots of some food does not mean we dont have problems that are growing with many forms of it just not being available. It is nothing serious yet, but it is happening slowly.

No one wants to think about it because humans have built in self preservation and repopulation, it literally goes against human nature to think about not furthering the family line and bringing more unfortunate people into an ever worsening planet.

Personally I have never wanted children and the older I get the more I think that would be just unfair on children to know the things I do and still inflict our failing ways on them for a life time for them to deal with.

We have, to some extent and are working real hard on the rest, ruined our planet and will continue to do so at an ever faster rate, regardless of wants or environmentalism or careing because as much as we do, we care about no.1 more, and as long as I got mine then people dont care.

If you cannot see, feel, hear, or taste the diference minute to minute, day to day, week to week… In a full Lifetime then it dosent exist (in people minds)…

By now we know we have ruined it, even the deniers know something is wrong, but we wont do anytbing that threatens out good time

Look at the recent lockdowns… Now imagine that being your life time… No one does that by choice.

We will be forced into this reality.

3 Likes
19

Maybe Im just that old but China’s actions have always been a subject for abstract thought in my school career.

One-child policy - Wikipedia.

1 Like
20

Spreading people thin and wide is a neat idea, and worked quite nicely, for the middle ages that is.

With modern farming techniques (and not throwing a third of global food production in the trash), it would work better to bunch everyone is mega-cities and use the surrounding area 50/50 for farming and nature preserves.

The one child policy in their specific case kind off worked out because they did a speedrun through industrialization and then had to stop the population pyramid from turning into a square.

The way this is going to work out if we continue on current trajectory:

  • Climate zones expand towards the poles with the transitions-areas between them experiencing increasingly extreme weather transitions

  • Insects migrate with the climate zones, many species will go extinct

  • global food chain failure

  • mass extinction event (starvation)

1 Like