3 ms·
Every time I read an ever more ridiculous "present continues into the future, unchanged, unlimited" claiming ever more billions of Africans, I think to myself a
by VLM 11y ago
Every time I read an ever more ridiculous "present continues into the future, unchanged, unlimited" claiming ever more billions of Africans, I think to myself a quote right out of this article “I couldn’t feed more children,”.
What I'm not sure is why. My guess is its financial propaganda such that if you assume food, jobs, energy, and economic activity will magically fall from heaven, then a company selling housewares would logically expect tripling the population would result in triple revenue leading to more than triple profits. That sounds like nice clickbait, and the bar rises every time clickbait is published, so I'm not surprised the bar right now is 4 billion africans. I'm sure to keep the financial press happy it'll be up to 8, maybe 10 billion by the end of next year.
Reality of course, with declining energy supplies and declining raw material and declining farmland, and increased lethality of weapons, is the 3rd world is going to take a bigger hit than the rest of the planet, so there's likely to be a modest population decline via the traditional unpleasant to think about methods.
There's a tragedy of the commons effect where on a societal level if at the gut level you know declines are coming, you're better off if everyone has fewer kids, but on an individual level both you AND all your other kids are better off if you have a larger family unit.
- apalmer 11y agoIts just game theory more or less...
- vlehto 11y agoI'd like to nitpick a little. I'm bit of history buff and weapons buff and as a result military history buff. "Lethality" of weapon could be defined in many ways. You could claim that lethality has not increased significantly since Hellenic period. Depends entirely form definition.