For reasons I don't understand, people seem to be incapable of separating any discussion of overpopulation from racism and eugenics. I think it's at the point where it's disingenuous, willful, or at the very least a massive blind spot in people talking about the problem. You should understand that bad people can embrace overpopulation with bad conclusions, and that should not taint reality. Hitler was an animal lover - does that mean it's wrong to love animals? That's the level of flawed argument we're dealing with here.

That was a different time before a reasonable house in a major metro area cost $500k-$1m. Capitalists want endless population growth forever to make their investments go up, and the only way they can get it in educated nations with low birth rate is immigration. Canada explicitly targets it. The population is doubling at the expense of affordability. I'll never be able to afford a house because everyone wants to live here, and immigration policy is set by those who favor endless growth.

That's the issue I have with the justice system - it's much too loose with facts because it's designed around persuading non experts (and arguably jury selection is designed to reject people with high education or relevant background knowledge). The adversarial process gives each side an equal go at persuasion even if one side doesn't have a leg to stand on scientifically. The judge isn't in a position to disallow something that would be considered bullshit to an expert, and any qualified expert is allowed to sell out and present a biased interpretation of facts, even if 99% of their peers would disagree. More often than not, your resources determine whether or not you're right in the eyes of the law. It's bullshit.

Edit: if you're a physician on trial for malpractice, "A jury of your peers" would consist entirely of physicians in your area of practice, as they are the only people with the relevant understanding and background knowledge to evaluate whether your actions followed the standard of care or constitute malpractice. The fact that courts don't operate this way means that findings of guilt or innocence are basically a popularity/debate contest with a veneer of authenticity.

Well that was a totally reasonable response from someone who is totally capable of considering the merits of an argument without relying on bad articles trying to drum up weak support for the author's preordained conclusion with circular reasoning. Nothing to see here folks. This guy has it all figured out and we should totally worship his correctness without debate.

IMO the only myth is the belief that it's a myth. The evidence is overwhelming.

Yeah, trust and federation is a concept that would have to be worked out in this model. I think it would require some critical-mass of federation amongst instances to establish trust. I wonder if this is an actual application for [dodges beer can] blockchain technology...

I appreciate the data-supported arguments but the comment on doubling was a stated goal of the Canadian national government. The Canadian population is presently projected to double in 26 years. Geographically constrained places with high immigration like Australia and Canada are shockingly unaffordable right now. These places are the canary in the coal mine for the US, which may have plenty of usable land on paper, but has the same issues with a self perpetuating cycle of the major metro areas having all the jobs and limited room to grow. The population is up 50% in my lifetime and I think that accurately reflects real estate becoming increasingly unattainable.

Edit: I guess what I'm saying is that housing-as-investment is wrong, but the basis for housing-as-investment (and indeed all investment) is the projection of increased future demand. In developed nations, this comes from immigration. If the population were shrinking indefinitely, housing certainly wouldn't be increasing in value

That's a good way to put it - it's laziness. Maybe it's laziness though the burden of history where the structure of the system is cobbled together from hundreds of years of increasingly irrelevant procedures and precedent that can't be modernized with society. I'm not a legal scholar by any stretch, but the whole thing looks suspect to me.

I've heard from medical experts that appear not to be mercenaries, but my issue is that there's no way for the legal system to distinguish between a person who takes the job only when they're on the right side of an issue, and a person who will craft an argument to make their side seem right regardless of the facts. The process all seems very corrupt from the outside. It incentivizes financial conflict of interest.

I just typed out a whole reply and it got eaten after I clicked reply - no surprise there are still going to be bugs in this implementation, nevermind getting more complex with it.

I'm not technical enough to make anything happen if it involves code, but I'm way psyched you're working on something along these lines. The way I see the problem there are some distinct issues

1. sharing the load of hosting (i.e. users are also hosts, as with torrents)
2. fault-tolerance / outage-tolerance
3. community/data immortality (i.e. discrete communities that are somehow not reliant on any instance)

I've seen this on Reddit before: Six figures means you're rich, because that was true in the 80s, right? Obviously people don't have a clue that 40 years of inflation has made that middle class.

Also: income is not wealth, and the willful lack of understanding on that point blows my mind. A person who is wealthy can live an upper middle class lifestyle or better without ever having to work again. A person who has respectable income may have minimal wealth, or even mountains of debt (student loans, mortgage, etc). A person who makes 100k could be a few months unemployment away from losing their house or lease, while a person with "wealth" may not have to work at all.

People don't become filthy rich working full time for six figures. The wealthy (~$20-50m net worth and up IMO) are people who made their money with something other than labor - through investments and things that the government doesn't really classify as normal income.

Edit: It's like the saying goes: nobody makes a billion dollars. They take a billion dollars. If you tax the wealthy on income, you collect very little tax, because it's not classified as income. Meanwhile you're going to tax an engineer or physician who probably have hefty student loans and work their asses off full time, at the highest marginal rates because we don't or can't tax wealth.

Edit2: we've got minimum wage internet trolls who think an employee software engineer is basically a cigar chomping capitalist because they make over the median wage. The middle class has shrunk and maybe you're not in it. Get a clue, dumbasses.

Get in, make as much as possible (with little to no regard for others), get out, retire early.

Arguably, this is what the American dream has become. It used to be we wanted middle class wealth, 2.1 kids, and a nice suburban house. But now all we want to do is sell out, retire, and never have to work again. I can relate, even if I lack the skills to play the game.

That's where we got antiwork, FIRE, etc. It's true: nobody wants to work anymore. I sure don't. Maybe we never did.

Huge areas of Canada are at high latitudes and very dark, cold, and inhospitable in the winter. Something like 50% of Canada's population lives south of the northern extent of the US (i.e. south of Seattle, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, half of MN, and almost all of MT/ND.

https://www.secretmuseum.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/canada-population-density-map-this-is-how-empty-canada-really-is-photos-huffpost-canada-of-canada-population-density-map.gif

Huge areas of Australia are desert.

The population distribution of Canada and Australia is not an accident. The coasts and more temperate climates are much more hospitable.

It sounds like we generally agree that there are structural reasons quite aside from population growth, and agree that they desperately need to be addressed (i.e. regulatory). I'm arguing from the perspective that we should absolutely attempt to address these reasons, but that ANY population growth from any source is essentially adding fuel to the fire.

I think a lot of emphasis gets put on "supply-side" solutions that sound a lot like "just build more houses, NBD!". From what I've observed we can't get there with the existing land without (IMO) excessive densification and/or sprawl which has an easily-felt deleterious effect on livability. I've spent the last couple of decades living in very different places, and watched them change due to growth. In all cases growth has caused traffic that never existed before, MASSIVE crowding of local attractions that can't be mitigated without restrictive permitting, and astronomical increases in the price of real estate. Without being hyperbolic at all, more population has quite literally been felt as less freedom. Some of this is due to the rise of the global middle class, but they have their hands in my home places at the expense of locals, and it's gone from great to hellish in about 20-30 years.

The problems with new housing seem to be:

1. limited/no affordable land available in places where people have historically lived (and which have jobs, nice weather, natural attractions, etc)
2. materials are at a premium due to increased global demand (and, admittedly the pandemic)
3. Local first-world labor has never been more expensive - labor doesn't scale like computing and related tech
4. densification in the form of attached dwellings on small land parcels, and no/fewer personal vehicles is a large decrease in QOL compared to the historic "American dream"

Like if you think you can find 10 million people to give up LA/Seattle/NY/etc and move to central Kansas, where there's no ocean, no mountains, no lakes, no jobs, and nothing to do, more power to you. People live in interesting places for good reasons, and other places are cheap for good reasons.

An adjacent point: nature abhors a vacuum. If the QOL is better in the US and there are ~8 billion possible candidates for immigration, our population could easily double in a month. The demand is there. We could adopt a policy of open borders until QOL reaches equilibrium at some much lower level and immigration stops - we could also make immigration virtually impossible - or anything in-between. I'm of the opinion that lower influx means > QOL pretty close to 100% of the time.

EDIT: tl;dr - more individuals translates to reduced individual freedom. I'm not going to get weird and libertarian about it, but that's the relationship I observe.

That's interesting, thanks.

I don't mean to seem disrespectful of the loss of your relative in any way, but how were you able to establish a causal relationship between the CPAP machine and a particular illness or death?

It's not a question based in some sort of absolvence-by-legal-technicality, but I often read accounts of grieving family members who "just know" that that MMR vaccine caused their son's autism, or that dad using a chemical occasionally in the garage "must have" caused his cancer - because it's less scary than the idea that bad health problems happen at random to people who didn't do anything to cause it.

Edit: rarely, some health condition leads to a smoking gun, but most do not. Mesothelioma is only caused by exposure to asbestos, which is why you see commercials for lawyers seeking plaintiffs for injury cases. The causal relationship is established.

Quite literally, same here. There's nothing wrong with bikes, but used cars became unreasonably expensive and younger people never tasted the freedom. Planes are like that with even smaller percentages of pilots and even more unreasonable prices (last affordable in the 1960s, while cars were affordable until the early 2000s or so). People hate what they don't have or understand. Personal vehicles are incredibly liberating for those of us who get it. We're being shamed for appreciating an independence everyone should experience, but can't because there are too many people, too much demand, and all the ecological problems that come with it. Yes, human impact could be reduced if everyone lived in abject poverty, but guess what, poor people in developing countries want Western amenities too. Everyone should.

Agreed, but social media has become an echo chamber for fuckcars and good luck reasoning with them.

To be honest I don't have a clue but my lay understanding is that it's a tool for establishing trust or authenticity in a distributed system. It was a half-serious suggestion because I've always heard those who are much more knowledgeable than me say that it has essentially no worthwhile applications.

There's a lot of land in North Dakota as well. It's super flat, boring, and winters are ultra cold and windy as hell. There are very good reasons it has a low population. It's further south than most of the places in Canada you're talking about.

EDIT: I'd like to add that "we're not overpopulated, there's plenty of land!" isn't really the whole story, either. Occupying every square mile that can be occupied should not be a goal. Leaving more places in a natural state without human impact is highly desirable, IMO.

https://newfastuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/fxy2rtr1ec651.png

Believe me when I say I'm not on corporations' side and I think they get away with all kinds of immoral shit through craftiness in the legal system, but I think that the only intellectually honest answer is that suspicious linkages are not causality, and that it should be evaluated by someone wielding scientific impartiality and robust statistical and epidemiological methods, rather than a legal process. Unfortunately courts are a shit place to evaluate science or broadly reality.

PFOA and similar precursor chemicals are one of those areas where I think it should be easy to establish elevated risk of disease with epidemiology (they probably have, but it's not my field and I haven't looked), but there are a lot of other areas that are much less clear cut. I've seen firsthand the family's emotional response to cancer being to find a villain somewhere, and it was in a case where I think no villain ever existed. People behave irrationally with mortal disease, and unfortunately some of it is just bad luck.

That's what I'm talking about also. Experts who are being paid to express an opinion, but in a circumstance where their peers would hold a consensus opinion that opposes what they are stating in court. Those experts are mercenaries.

I certainly agree based on my previous statement that income is not wealth, but I was trying to make two points and mixed the messages.

One is that amounts of money that were once considered an unbelievable amount for income or wealth - say $100k and $1m - have now been eroded by inflation to fairly modest money. In the 70s or 80s, having a million meant never working again. Earning 100k a year when a house cost $50k was huge money, and might lead to wealth quickly, if one bought several houses with it.

Another point I'd like to sneak in is that there's almost no modern equivalent to that kind of employed income. On paper, inflation puts it at 400k - so maybe today's equivalent of a surgeon - but the 50k house now costs $500k-1m. Notional inflation being 4x, while the critically important things have gone up 10-20x means that something harder to quantify is broken, and upward mobility isn't working the way we expect. The same opportunities don't exist. We are less likely to turn income into wealth over time than at points in the past, and so the tendency of people to erroneously think high income = wealth may have a reasonable basis in history that has never been less true today.

Edit: and it's not just houses, it's the stock market. The advent of the internet and e-commerce resulting in tech stock growth 1995-today is a phenomenon not likely to be replicated in any other area. We may be running out of growth to be had. The ability to get 10-20x your money over 30-40 years of investments is probably gone, and with it the prospect of comfortable retirement for even relatively high earners.

You're off by a factor of 4 on the grocery distance for the last 3 places I've lived, and those stores were CLOSE. It's like 100cc of petrol to go that far, 200cc round trip, in lieu of 40+ minutes of fast walking (in which you can only carry limited groceries). I know all about it because I've done the walk many times when I didn't have a car, and it fucking sucks.

I'd say freaking out about 200ccs of petrol to get groceries is an insane degree of austerity, and the fact that people like you are proposing that is evidence of either an irrational need to control impact, or (if justified) evidence that the world is grotesquely overpopulated.

Nobody owns 3 ton cars around here. Mine isn't even 2 tons. In fact it's pretty close in weight to a Fiat 500, while being generally more useful in every way. Everything you're presenting is a strawman/caricature of what you imagine typical suburban car owners to live like. And yes, we should all be driving electric cars, but it's not going to happen overnight.

Edit: damn near nobody on earth would drive to get groceries if the store was 300m/1000ft away. Most people will never be able to live that close to the grocery store, work, or any other place that they routinely need to visit. That's why your example is insane.

Are you going to be first in line to give up your computer? Your phone? Antibiotics? Vaccines? Electricity?

Innovation is real, even if you don't personally like it. Motor vehicles are a legitimately good invention, arguably only becoming problematic due to increasing population and urbanization.

This is exactly the point I've been making to them. I think it's a bunch of people who have never lived outside of a major city, or grew up in new-construction actual suburban hell like Phoenix, DFW, Vegas, most of FL etc. Try old Midwest small city suburbs by comparison. Maybe parts of the northeast.

They probably couldn't afford a car after used car prices spiked sometime between 2000-2010, and never experienced the freedom and autonomy. They can't imagine not being into a downtown club scene - it hasn't dawned on them that they will probably grow up and hate living in a congested apartment world and might want to stretch out in a bigger house in a quiet neighborhood. It's never occurred to them that not everyone works from home and their spouse may need to take a job 20 miles in the opposite direction.

Do you sell your house because your job changed? Get divorced because your partner's job changed? You can't have ALL of the employment in easy reach by public transit from your home. This ideal-city with perfect transit and no commute is a handwave. UNLESS you live in a sufficiently small town that has everything but hasn't blown up yet - and those aren't dense enough for transit, and require personal vehicles.

Public transit is also more inconvenient than convenient even if you give it a maximum advantage in density and stipulate that the trains will run 24/7 and frequently (NYC).

It's just inexperience with life or being an urban loving weirdo who can't imagine that other perspectives exist. I want to spend all of my free time in places you couldn't service with transit. They can't even imagine it.

Totally agree. Income isn't wealth and people are clinging onto 1970s implications of "millionaire" when in 2023 having a million net worth doesn't even allow you to retire and might just mean you own a house and have little other savings. Similarly "six figures" income meant a lot 30-40 years ago, but inflation eroded that to middle class in the 21st century.

It's hard to tell the intent of any poster, and there is a vehement anti-car movement here (and on Reddit) that allows for no exceptions to the idea that living should be done at high density, and without personal vehicles. It's hard to read your intent and beliefs because the things you said before are very similar to what I've heard from the zealots.

I'm trying to make the point that public transit easily misses on serving every origin, destination, and timing efficiently. Usually it misses badly, and my average experience with specific commutes is a 3x time penalty for transit vs driving. The penalty gets worse if done at especially early or late hours. Maybe this is exacerbated by car infrastructure and lower density, but the anti car crowd would have you believe it's intrinsic and not a function of history and preference. At any rate I usually disagree with them on almost every premise.

Maybe you happen to be on a route that runs well from home to work without lots of stops and no need to change lines. Can you find a destination in your city that would require a change of bus or train and incur a larger time penalty? What if your job was located there instead?

I think most people buy sensible vehicles but there are certainly people who have a truck fetish that is not justified. Unfortunately it creates an arms race where all cars get larger because there are very real risks of a collision with a larger vehicle.

We're very quickly moving to a place where the QUANTITY of people is so high, the QUALITY of their lifestyles have to be sacrificed to cut down on human impact. The impoverished/developing world has very low impact, at huge cost to their quality of life. Who wants to volunteer to live like sub-saharan Africans, or Indians in abject poverty to cut down on human impact? I'm certain they don't want that life - and why should they? I'm sure they would like to travel on a jet to a beach vacation like those in more affluent countries do.

I'm calling this eco-austerity. Instead of publicizing overpopulation and promoting low birth rates, we're expected to belt tighten and give up on quality of life. It's bullshit. We should have <1B people living like kings, not 10B people living like peasants.