5 ms·

Reducing the number of humans could be one approach. The idea causes rancorous response from religious people who believe God told us to be fruitful and multipl

by hughw 9y ago

Reducing the number of humans could be one approach. The idea causes rancorous response from religious people who believe God told us to be fruitful and multiply. To reduce births might require coercion, it's true, but it would not require killing people or making them suffer. I don't see how else we can continue to enjoy the benefits and power of technology while keeping the planet habitable and enjoyable.

ThrustVectoring 9y ago
>To reduce births might require coercion, it's true, but it would not require killing or people or making them suffer. The demographic shift of increasing the number of retirees per healthy adult will definitively cause suffering. There's a reason why Millennials are putting off having children - they can't afford to.
- hughw 9y ago
  tiny violin.... edit: bring it, millenial whiners...
- Zhenya 9y ago
  Well, not while buying avocado toast. /s
meric 9y ago
Coercion doesn't mean suffering to you but it might to others. The world can support more if everyone consume less.
julianj 9y ago
Every time I see this suggested I am reminded of Idocracy. Only some people will choose not to reproduce. The genes of those who disagree with this idea will be the genes passed on to later generations. One could also assume that the opposing ideas regarding reproduction are also more likely to be passed on. I don't really see this as a viable voluntary solution. If not voluntary, how could a place do this without instituting something like a 'one child' policy?
- hughw 9y ago
  Wealthy nations already seem to have topped out on population growth, and now grow only through immigration. It could be that when societies reach a certain level of development they naturally produce fewer than two children per family.
  - julianj 9y ago
    As other nations continue to grow and industrialize, the issue then doesn't really go away. It seems that the problem would just move around the globe until we hit critical mass. The only solutions I see to this issue are to be more efficient with the resources we do have and/or move to another planet and start the process over again. Since moving to another planet is not something we will likely be able to do with billions of people in the short term, conserving resources and reducing consumption seem to be a more reachable goal.
    - gnaritas 9y ago
      > As other nations continue to grow and industrialize, the issue then doesn't really go away. Sure it does, as each national industrializes it solves part of the problem; when they all do it, problem gone. > It seems that the problem would just move around the globe until we hit critical mass. You really haven't thought this through.
      - julianj 9y ago
        I can see why you'd think that. However, industrialization does not occur overnight. > You really haven't thought this through. I don't know why you would say this. Do you think that Earth will never reach a point where its population exceeds the planet's capacity to support it?
        sobani 9y ago
        Where will the problem move to when every nation is industrialized?
Berobero 9y ago
You realize the world's birth rate has already been on the decline for decades, correct? And in general, the bulk of this occurred not because of coercion, but because of economic development and the ensuing shifts in optimum family strategy.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- hughw 9y ago
  Yes but I can't say for sure the cause is economic development. It seems likely, but it's a correlation, not a proven cause.
- esrauch 9y ago
  When you say "birth rate is falling" its effectively the second derivative on "number of people" right? As in, if we have go from 2 children born per person to 1.5 children born per person, we are still growing the number of people. Even if "children per person" falls slow enough you could even indefinitely increase the rate that new people are added right?
  - joeyo 9y ago
    That's right, but note that the replacement rate depends on mortality rates and any gender-bias for either birth or mortality. Generally birth rates below 2.1 are consider "sub-replacement", but it can be much higher in some locales (due to disease, war, etc). Here are some per-continent population projections: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_(UN).svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_(UN... (Interestingly, the above chart was created about 10 years ago; I do wonder how accurate it's been.)
  - hughw 9y ago
    I said children per family, not per person.
    - esrauch 9y ago

by hughw 9y ago

ThrustVectoring 9y ago

>To reduce births might require coercion, it's true, but it would not require killing or people or making them suffer. The demographic shift of increasing the number of retirees per healthy adult will definitively cause suffering. There's a reason why Millennials are putting off having children - they can't afford to.

hughw 9y ago
tiny violin.... edit: bring it, millenial whiners...
Zhenya 9y ago
Well, not while buying avocado toast. /s

meric 9y ago

Coercion doesn't mean suffering to you but it might to others. The world can support more if everyone consume less.

julianj 9y ago

Every time I see this suggested I am reminded of Idocracy. Only some people will choose not to reproduce. The genes of those who disagree with this idea will be the genes passed on to later generations. One could also assume that the opposing ideas regarding reproduction are also more likely to be passed on. I don't really see this as a viable voluntary solution. If not voluntary, how could a place do this without instituting something like a 'one child' policy?

hughw 9y ago
Wealthy nations already seem to have topped out on population growth, and now grow only through immigration. It could be that when societies reach a certain level of development they naturally produce fewer than two children per family.
- julianj 9y ago
  As other nations continue to grow and industrialize, the issue then doesn't really go away. It seems that the problem would just move around the globe until we hit critical mass. The only solutions I see to this issue are to be more efficient with the resources we do have and/or move to another planet and start the process over again. Since moving to another planet is not something we will likely be able to do with billions of people in the short term, conserving resources and reducing consumption seem to be a more reachable goal.
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    > As other nations continue to grow and industrialize, the issue then doesn't really go away. Sure it does, as each national industrializes it solves part of the problem; when they all do it, problem gone. > It seems that the problem would just move around the globe until we hit critical mass. You really haven't thought this through.
    - julianj 9y ago
      I can see why you'd think that. However, industrialization does not occur overnight. > You really haven't thought this through. I don't know why you would say this. Do you think that Earth will never reach a point where its population exceeds the planet's capacity to support it?
      - sobani 9y ago
        Where will the problem move to when every nation is industrialized?

Berobero 9y ago

You realize the world's birth rate has already been on the decline for decades, correct? And in general, the bulk of this occurred not because of coercion, but because of economic development and the ensuing shifts in optimum family strategy.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
hughw 9y ago
Yes but I can't say for sure the cause is economic development. It seems likely, but it's a correlation, not a proven cause.
esrauch 9y ago
When you say "birth rate is falling" its effectively the second derivative on "number of people" right? As in, if we have go from 2 children born per person to 1.5 children born per person, we are still growing the number of people. Even if "children per person" falls slow enough you could even indefinitely increase the rate that new people are added right?
- joeyo 9y ago
  That's right, but note that the replacement rate depends on mortality rates and any gender-bias for either birth or mortality. Generally birth rates below 2.1 are consider "sub-replacement", but it can be much higher in some locales (due to disease, war, etc). Here are some per-continent population projections: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_(UN).svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_(UN... (Interestingly, the above chart was created about 10 years ago; I do wonder how accurate it's been.)
- hughw 9y ago
  I said children per family, not per person.
  - esrauch 9y ago