Hypothetically, would it be better to triple the number of humans to have the resources to build sustainable technology to save the planet, or would it be better to cap/limit the number humans in order to slow the damage we are doing? Discuss
If you triple the number of humans, you triple the number of @elonmusk's.
Not all humans are created equal both in their potential to be Elon Musk and their carbon emissions. For example, most of the world's young are in poor education, low-carbon emission Africa.
-
-
The limitation is that were not tripling the resources on Earth. Everybody would have less because resources would be more scarce. Maybe Tesla would not have gotten the support it has in this alternate reality. When you mess with parameters, you get unintended results.
-
Agree with your point re: unintended consequences. If the extra 14 billion people weren't airdropped on us tomorrow and instead were slowly introduced proportionate to our current geographical population density, we'd be fine. For example, if USA had China's pop density...
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
In any case, I say triple the number of humans. We have plenty of space and I'm optimistic that triple the brainpower outweighs triple the waste.
-
I don't think you realize that you or I could be an "Elon". Its a matter of will power plus some variables, not innate genius. Just look at the populations of the Netherlands, Israel, or India. 3x/30x more or less humans does not have an effect on this equation.
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It took 107 billion attempts for this miracle to happen. I don't think 14 more will be enough.pic.twitter.com/xybXhAaA83
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.