3 ms·

> Population will grow exponentially until something bounds it. That's only true if fertility rates stay above the replacement fertility rates. As nations beco

by pg314 9y ago

> Population will grow exponentially until something bounds it. That's only true if fertility rates stay above the replacement fertility rates. As nations become more developed, fertility rates tend to fall. In the EU-28 the fertility rate was 1.58 children per woman in 2015, well below the replacement rate of 2 [1]. India's fell from 5.9 in 1960 to 2.4 in 2015 [2]. > There's going to have to be competition for resources, and those who lose out will die. We may as well get used to that now. Your Malthusian view is outdated. We can easily feed and shelter the current population (and projected peak population) for the foreseeable future. [1] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tsdde220&plugin=0 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&l... [2] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?

narrowrail 9y ago
As I believe humans are the #1 cause of climate change/ destruction and the eradication of other species, I think we could stand to lose about half the current human population until we can figure out a sustainable lifestyle.
- pg314 9y ago
  Setting aside the obvious moral problems with "losing" half the current human population, letting the market decide is exactly the wrong thing to do here. It's not the bottom 50% (the once that would starve) that are the problem in terms of climate change, it's the top 50% (or 10%). The average CO2 emissions per capita in the US are 16 metric tons per year, versus 1.6 in India [1]. You would end up with 50% of the population, but still have 95% of the CO2 emissions. You could accomplish much more by cutting the fossil fuel subsidies ($5.3 trillion in 2015 if you count the externalities [2]). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... [2] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16...

by pg314 9y ago

narrowrail 9y ago

As I believe humans are the #1 cause of climate change/ destruction and the eradication of other species, I think we could stand to lose about half the current human population until we can figure out a sustainable lifestyle.

pg314 9y ago
Setting aside the obvious moral problems with "losing" half the current human population, letting the market decide is exactly the wrong thing to do here. It's not the bottom 50% (the once that would starve) that are the problem in terms of climate change, it's the top 50% (or 10%). The average CO2 emissions per capita in the US are 16 metric tons per year, versus 1.6 in India [1]. You would end up with 50% of the population, but still have 95% of the CO2 emissions. You could accomplish much more by cutting the fossil fuel subsidies ($5.3 trillion in 2015 if you count the externalities [2]). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... [2] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16...