I think it is. It's a pretty weak "argument" to begin with, more like just an assertion that it's wrong (because it's wrong).

> we could easily say that both scenarios are less than ideal? Being born into poverty at least means you might have options in life like, you might actually meet enough people to find someone who you actually want to procreate with? What's that going to look like being stuck in what is esentially a small shopping mall your whole life?

In terms of the number of people you would meet? Well it would look like almost everybody for the entire history of humanity.

> Imposing morals? Trolling?

I don't understand your question. Do you not believe that "they should have access to basic things such as to be able to experience the natural world" is imposing your own morals on the procreation of others?

That's your assertion. Billions of people have been porn into abject poverty and disease and without hope for better, have learned (and in many ways seen and experienced) much less than these space travelers would. Unless we're going the forced sterilization and eugenics kind of route, I'm not sure how it's consistent to impose your own morals and standards onto others' procreation.

People who have more than you existing doesn't have to be a reason that you're unhappy though.

I think it is an actual matchup. Is there a prohibition against the human pilot from riding in the aircraft to improve latency?

The PA Semi purchase and redirection of their team from PowerPC to ARM was completely different and obviously signaled they were all in on ARM, like their earlier ARM/Newton stuff did not.

Not this heavily. They bought an entire CPU design and implementation team (PA Semi).

This could be the first time in history that the "green" / petroleum alliance's anti-nuclear FUD has ever had a positive outcome for the environment.

I don't think I estimated it anywhere, so I don't think I am. And in fact I was not just talking about CO2 emissions and climate change, to the contrary I explicitly said actually that climate change is one of a long, long, long list of massive environmental problems we're facing. That's the thing, even if we do "solve" climate change somehow, we're not remotely in the clear.

Reducing (or just not growing) population makes everything easier. CO2 emissions. Land required for food, lithium and other minerals and metals required for cars and computers and batteries and buildings, farming and housing footprint, clean water. Everything. No other measure is as staggeringly effective in reducing the human footprint on the environment as not increasing population.

> It's one of the slowest ways to reduce our carbon emissions. If by 2070 population (in some country) is 30% lower than today that's a dramatic change. But the effect on the environment (land use, carbon emissions etc) is likely not more than 30%, and that's not much!

It's compounding and it certainly is an issue. US CO2 emissions peaked 50 years ago if population was stable.

And it seems to be often times very pro-climate action positions that take this contradictory position that population must continue to increase. I don't know what to make of that other than either they don't really care about climate change, or they want commoners to have a dwindling piece of the pie while the top end continues to get richer, but either way they don't seem to really care about environmental impact of humans.

Japan has PPP per capita income more than twice as high as China, 5x India. The idea it can't possibly pay more to take care of its elderly and infirm otherwise its society will collapse is up there with the most ludicrous wall street craziness I've ever heard. And they've already been ousted as shysters, mind you, because they've been repeating the same thing for a generation now. Because what they are really scared of as I said is people waking up to the fact that their pyramid scheme isn't the only way to do things.

Seems to me that by the time we reach a global crunch, countries like Japan that will already be a generation or two into addressing this problem and restructuring their societies and economies to cope without ever increasing population will be in a far better position than those continuing to push unsustainable growth to defer the inevitable.