6 ms·

An economy depending on population growth is incompatible with physics. If we care about climate change we should want every country to have a population declin

An economy depending on population growth is incompatible with physics. If we care about climate change we should want every country to have a population decline until we can live within our carbon means.

colechristensen 9y ago
The universe is a big place. Moving to other planets isn't only reasonable, people are planning for it. Sustained growth is possible.
- serhei 9y ago
  Until you have hard data on how people born and raised in <40% Earth gravity turn out, moving to other planets is only a possibility, not something you can plan for.
- cellis 9y ago
  Also, with new technologies like CRISPR, AI, and bionics (and beyond) will we soon dramatically alter fundamentally what it means to be human? Perhaps on a unit basis our future selves will be far more resource efficient.
- dangerlibrary 9y ago
  There is nothing reasonable about moving to Mars - a place where the average temperature is -55C and there is no breathable atmosphere. Imagine such a place on earth, and now imagine trying to sell a home there to someone. We may, one day, colonize other planets. But we evolved specifically to exist on this one. Each new environment will likely take centuries, if not millenia, to properly colonize. The fact that it is theoretically possible for a comically tiny fraction of Earth's population to eke out a hardscrabble, miserable life on other planets should not impact policy decisions on terra firma.
- yourapostasy 9y ago
  Anytime I see talk of mass colonization as part of a solution to overpopulation, I direct people to Charles Stross' discussion about the infeasibility of doing so [1] [2]. The TL;DR is: until we find a breakthrough like cheap anti-gravity (like depicted in Interstellar), moving that much sheer mass of humanity is energetically (with the required specific impulse) not within our civilization's current capabilities. [1] http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high... [2] http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/08/space-cadets.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/08/space-ca...
stale2002 9y ago
Sure..... In the very long run. But most of the planet is currently uninhabited. We have at least a couple hundred years before we would really have to worry about overpopulation. Not that it will get to that point, anyway. Birthrates will be below replacement rate in a couple decades.
- bluthru 9y ago
  >We have at least a couple hundred years before we would really have to worry about overpopulation. We are using energy and releasing carbon at an unsustainable rate. This means that we are overpopulated.
  - stale2002 9y ago
    People were saying that back in the 1960s, and that within 20 years, we'd be facing worldwide famine, where billions die. Those predictions never came to pass. Also, peak oil supply was supposed to hit us in the year 2000. The peak oil people were correct, in the wrong way though. We aren't going to hit peak oil supply. We are going to hit peak oil DEMAND. As in, our other technological solutions are going to overtake oil, because it will be cheaper and better before we come even close to running out of our non-renewable resources. By looking at all of the recent developments in solar energy (which is currently following freaking "solar moores law". Within a decade, at current improvement rates it will be cheaper than coal in most locations. It already IS cheaper in high energy cost places like hawaii), and other technology progress, humans are easily easily on track to solving all of the supposed problems of overpopulation before come close to being an issue. What the overpopulation people never figured out is that our rate of technological progress is faster than the rate that we use up resources, and it is faster by a long shot.
    - antisthenes 9y ago
      You are creating multiple strawmen and arguing with yourself. > What the overpopulation people never figured out is that our rate of technological progress is faster than the rate that we use up resources, and it is faster by a long shot. What the techno-optimists haven't figured out is that technological progress and the resources aren't unlimited, the only case where your argument makes any sense.
averagewall 9y ago
You mean like the low population of medieval Europe that didn't live within its tree-cutting means and destroyed nearly all its forests? Same for the ancient humans who killed off the megafauna, or the 1800's humans who nearly killed off the whales? Lower population also means lower chance of inventing new technology, and thus being harmed by smaller problems.
- lapsock 9y ago
  >You mean like the low population of medieval Europe that didn't live within its tree-cutting means and destroyed nearly all its forests? What? Forests get destroyed because of stupidity, not because of population numbers. And I agree with OP, I don't see what's the big deal about lack of new people. If anything I think it's a good thing.
- shoo 9y ago
  > Lower population also means lower chance of inventing new technology, and thus being harmed by smaller problems. Supposing current technology level + ecological constraints, what do you think the rough optimal world population level should be? * less? * 0.01 billion people * 0.1 billion people * 1 billion people * 10 billion people * 100 billion people * 1000 billion people * more? edit: to try to answer this question myself, i think 1 or 0.1 billion people would be vastly preferable to the status quo of 7.5b and growing in terms of buying time for us to sort out how to live without damaging global ecology. i have no idea how to actually reach that state without a lot of planned/unplanned misery.
  - fooker 9y ago
    >world population It is a big assumption that we will be restricted to the 'world'. When we are not, it doesn't make much sense to stop a population explosion.
    - collyw 9y ago
      At present we pretty much are restricted to the world. Technically we have a few people in a space station, but I am pretty sure that isn't the answer to our overpopulation problems.
yongjik 9y ago
Population growth is about as incompatible with physics as SUVs, that is, not very much, unless you like hyperboles.
NickM 9y ago
Climate change isn't a problem of having too many people on earth, it's a problem of emitting too much CO2 per person. If we got rid of 90% of the world population, we would still be dealing with climate change, it would just be happening more slowly. Trying to fix climate change by reducing population is like trying to fix a leaky pipe by reducing the water pressure; yeah it might cause less water to leak but it doesn't solve the underlying problem. One could argue that having fewer people on earth would still be a good thing because it would give us more time to solve the real problem of reducing CO2 per person; but it would also mean we'd have fewer scientists and engineers working to develop the sustainable technology needed to solve our problems. It's not clear if fewer people would lead to a better or worse end result, or if it would just get us to the same place more slowly.
- losteric 9y ago
  Thats not entirely accurate... The planet can adapt to a certain amount of CO2, a small enough population could use fossil fuels indefinitely. Climate change reflects a massive population each with a massive ecological footprint.
  - NickM 9y ago
    Fair point, but in practice we're not likely to get down to such a low population level any time soon (if ever).
- bluthru 9y ago
  >but it would also mean we'd have fewer scientists and engineers working to develop the sustainable technology needed to solve our problems No it wouldn't. Quality over quantity. Having to support less productive and low-IQ people means less resources available to solve difficult problems.

colechristensen 9y ago

The universe is a big place. Moving to other planets isn't only reasonable, people are planning for it. Sustained growth is possible.

serhei 9y ago
Until you have hard data on how people born and raised in <40% Earth gravity turn out, moving to other planets is only a possibility, not something you can plan for.
cellis 9y ago
Also, with new technologies like CRISPR, AI, and bionics (and beyond) will we soon dramatically alter fundamentally what it means to be human? Perhaps on a unit basis our future selves will be far more resource efficient.
dangerlibrary 9y ago
There is nothing reasonable about moving to Mars - a place where the average temperature is -55C and there is no breathable atmosphere. Imagine such a place on earth, and now imagine trying to sell a home there to someone. We may, one day, colonize other planets. But we evolved specifically to exist on this one. Each new environment will likely take centuries, if not millenia, to properly colonize. The fact that it is theoretically possible for a comically tiny fraction of Earth's population to eke out a hardscrabble, miserable life on other planets should not impact policy decisions on terra firma.
yourapostasy 9y ago
Anytime I see talk of mass colonization as part of a solution to overpopulation, I direct people to Charles Stross' discussion about the infeasibility of doing so [1] [2]. The TL;DR is: until we find a breakthrough like cheap anti-gravity (like depicted in Interstellar), moving that much sheer mass of humanity is energetically (with the required specific impulse) not within our civilization's current capabilities. [1] http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high... [2] http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/08/space-cadets.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/08/space-ca...

stale2002 9y ago

Sure..... In the very long run. But most of the planet is currently uninhabited. We have at least a couple hundred years before we would really have to worry about overpopulation. Not that it will get to that point, anyway. Birthrates will be below replacement rate in a couple decades.

bluthru 9y ago
>We have at least a couple hundred years before we would really have to worry about overpopulation. We are using energy and releasing carbon at an unsustainable rate. This means that we are overpopulated.
- stale2002 9y ago
  People were saying that back in the 1960s, and that within 20 years, we'd be facing worldwide famine, where billions die. Those predictions never came to pass. Also, peak oil supply was supposed to hit us in the year 2000. The peak oil people were correct, in the wrong way though. We aren't going to hit peak oil supply. We are going to hit peak oil DEMAND. As in, our other technological solutions are going to overtake oil, because it will be cheaper and better before we come even close to running out of our non-renewable resources. By looking at all of the recent developments in solar energy (which is currently following freaking "solar moores law". Within a decade, at current improvement rates it will be cheaper than coal in most locations. It already IS cheaper in high energy cost places like hawaii), and other technology progress, humans are easily easily on track to solving all of the supposed problems of overpopulation before come close to being an issue. What the overpopulation people never figured out is that our rate of technological progress is faster than the rate that we use up resources, and it is faster by a long shot.
  - antisthenes 9y ago
    You are creating multiple strawmen and arguing with yourself. > What the overpopulation people never figured out is that our rate of technological progress is faster than the rate that we use up resources, and it is faster by a long shot. What the techno-optimists haven't figured out is that technological progress and the resources aren't unlimited, the only case where your argument makes any sense.

averagewall 9y ago

You mean like the low population of medieval Europe that didn't live within its tree-cutting means and destroyed nearly all its forests? Same for the ancient humans who killed off the megafauna, or the 1800's humans who nearly killed off the whales? Lower population also means lower chance of inventing new technology, and thus being harmed by smaller problems.

lapsock 9y ago
>You mean like the low population of medieval Europe that didn't live within its tree-cutting means and destroyed nearly all its forests? What? Forests get destroyed because of stupidity, not because of population numbers. And I agree with OP, I don't see what's the big deal about lack of new people. If anything I think it's a good thing.
shoo 9y ago
> Lower population also means lower chance of inventing new technology, and thus being harmed by smaller problems. Supposing current technology level + ecological constraints, what do you think the rough optimal world population level should be? * less? * 0.01 billion people * 0.1 billion people * 1 billion people * 10 billion people * 100 billion people * 1000 billion people * more? edit: to try to answer this question myself, i think 1 or 0.1 billion people would be vastly preferable to the status quo of 7.5b and growing in terms of buying time for us to sort out how to live without damaging global ecology. i have no idea how to actually reach that state without a lot of planned/unplanned misery.
- fooker 9y ago
  >world population It is a big assumption that we will be restricted to the 'world'. When we are not, it doesn't make much sense to stop a population explosion.
  - collyw 9y ago
    At present we pretty much are restricted to the world. Technically we have a few people in a space station, but I am pretty sure that isn't the answer to our overpopulation problems.

yongjik 9y ago

Population growth is about as incompatible with physics as SUVs, that is, not very much, unless you like hyperboles.

NickM 9y ago

Climate change isn't a problem of having too many people on earth, it's a problem of emitting too much CO2 per person. If we got rid of 90% of the world population, we would still be dealing with climate change, it would just be happening more slowly. Trying to fix climate change by reducing population is like trying to fix a leaky pipe by reducing the water pressure; yeah it might cause less water to leak but it doesn't solve the underlying problem. One could argue that having fewer people on earth would still be a good thing because it would give us more time to solve the real problem of reducing CO2 per person; but it would also mean we'd have fewer scientists and engineers working to develop the sustainable technology needed to solve our problems. It's not clear if fewer people would lead to a better or worse end result, or if it would just get us to the same place more slowly.

losteric 9y ago
Thats not entirely accurate... The planet can adapt to a certain amount of CO2, a small enough population could use fossil fuels indefinitely. Climate change reflects a massive population each with a massive ecological footprint.
- NickM 9y ago
  Fair point, but in practice we're not likely to get down to such a low population level any time soon (if ever).
bluthru 9y ago
>but it would also mean we'd have fewer scientists and engineers working to develop the sustainable technology needed to solve our problems No it wouldn't. Quality over quantity. Having to support less productive and low-IQ people means less resources available to solve difficult problems.