3 ms·

These include moving beyond the pursuit of economic growth in wealthy nations, shifting rapidly from fossil fuels to renewable energy, and significantly reducin

by gaius 9y ago

These include moving beyond the pursuit of economic growth in wealthy nations, shifting rapidly from fossil fuels to renewable energy, and significantly reducing inequality. The one thing not mentioned is that only actual solution: managing populations. The number of people on the planet has nearly doubled just in my lifetime! Also on HN today https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16339467 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16339467 But making more people is not a problem the human race has.

collyw 9y ago
I watched a video last night that was full of optimism. Pointed out that as countries got richer less children died and people had less children. So eventually the population will level off. It seemed to overlook the fact that we are currently using up resources 1.5 times faster than they are being replenished (amongst many other related problems). https://youtu.be/QsBT5EQt348 https://youtu.be/QsBT5EQt348
- naasking 9y ago
  The rate we are using resources is also decelerating with increased efficiency through technological advancement.
  - collyw 9y ago
    Have you got any numbers on that? I am aware that things are becoming more efficient, but we are still adding a lot of people to the world. And more and more people are moving from relative poverty to more western lifestyles and corresponding increased levels of consumption.
    - naasking 9y ago
      There is some debate surrounding this, known as Jevon's paradox. There have also been some papers where the rebound effect has been studied and found to be low to moderate, so efficiency improvements do have a positive impact: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421500000215 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142150... Indeed the population is still increasing, but population growth is decelerating. Population will likely plateau within the next 70-80 years, and then possibly decline.
jdietrich 9y ago
Population control isn't a solution to anything. We're already at or very close to "peak child". There are about two billion children in the world, a figure we don't expect to ever significantly increase. We expect the population to grow to between 9 and 11 billion by the end of the century, but the cause of that growth is simply survival. Increasing life expectancy means that the population is turning over more slowly - there's no increase in the number of children being born, but people are surviving longer. Most of the developed world is already at or below a replacement fertility rate. The developing world is catching up very quickly. The birth rate in India has fallen from 5.91 per woman in 1960 to 2.4 today. Bangladesh has done even better, with their birth rate falling from 6.95 in 1970 to 2.14 today. If you're proposing that we reduce the global population, you have two options. Option one is to reduce the global fertility rate to well below replacement and accept an increasingly ageing society. With current trends in life expectancy, this option would leave us completely unable to care for the elderly. At best, this means millions of elderly people being warehoused in robotic care facilities; at worst, it means leaving people to die, especially in middle-income countries. Option two is some kind of genocide. Unless you're willing to volunteer yourself or your child as a sacrifice, I suggest we all figure out how to share our resources more equitably and use them more efficiency.
- gaius 9y ago
  We're already at or very close to "peak child". There are about two billion children in the world, a figure we don't expect to ever significantly increase. We expect the population to grow to between 9 and 11 billion Who's "we" in this context? Because every time someone makes one of these predictions the human race blows through it and keeps going. I wouldn't be surprised if we reach 20Bn. I expect it only to be curtailed by environmental catastrophe. Unless you're willing to volunteer yourself or your child as a sacrifice I'm child-free, so I can look at this objectively.
  - jdietrich 9y ago
    >Who's "we" in this context? Homo sapiens. The global fertility rate has more than halved over the last 50 years. The developed world now has a birth rate substantially below replacement. Birth rate in the developing world is falling precipitously, matching the rate of decline that happened in the developed world 50 years ago. This isn't a blip. It isn't speculation. It's an undeniable and epoch-defining change in how our species reproduces. The age of Malthus is over. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN/ https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN/

by gaius 9y ago

collyw 9y ago

I watched a video last night that was full of optimism. Pointed out that as countries got richer less children died and people had less children. So eventually the population will level off. It seemed to overlook the fact that we are currently using up resources 1.5 times faster than they are being replenished (amongst many other related problems). https://youtu.be/QsBT5EQt348 https://youtu.be/QsBT5EQt348

naasking 9y ago
The rate we are using resources is also decelerating with increased efficiency through technological advancement.
- collyw 9y ago
  Have you got any numbers on that? I am aware that things are becoming more efficient, but we are still adding a lot of people to the world. And more and more people are moving from relative poverty to more western lifestyles and corresponding increased levels of consumption.
  - naasking 9y ago
    There is some debate surrounding this, known as Jevon's paradox. There have also been some papers where the rebound effect has been studied and found to be low to moderate, so efficiency improvements do have a positive impact: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421500000215 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142150... Indeed the population is still increasing, but population growth is decelerating. Population will likely plateau within the next 70-80 years, and then possibly decline.

jdietrich 9y ago

Population control isn't a solution to anything. We're already at or very close to "peak child". There are about two billion children in the world, a figure we don't expect to ever significantly increase. We expect the population to grow to between 9 and 11 billion by the end of the century, but the cause of that growth is simply survival. Increasing life expectancy means that the population is turning over more slowly - there's no increase in the number of children being born, but people are surviving longer. Most of the developed world is already at or below a replacement fertility rate. The developing world is catching up very quickly. The birth rate in India has fallen from 5.91 per woman in 1960 to 2.4 today. Bangladesh has done even better, with their birth rate falling from 6.95 in 1970 to 2.14 today. If you're proposing that we reduce the global population, you have two options. Option one is to reduce the global fertility rate to well below replacement and accept an increasingly ageing society. With current trends in life expectancy, this option would leave us completely unable to care for the elderly. At best, this means millions of elderly people being warehoused in robotic care facilities; at worst, it means leaving people to die, especially in middle-income countries. Option two is some kind of genocide. Unless you're willing to volunteer yourself or your child as a sacrifice, I suggest we all figure out how to share our resources more equitably and use them more efficiency.

gaius 9y ago
We're already at or very close to "peak child". There are about two billion children in the world, a figure we don't expect to ever significantly increase. We expect the population to grow to between 9 and 11 billion Who's "we" in this context? Because every time someone makes one of these predictions the human race blows through it and keeps going. I wouldn't be surprised if we reach 20Bn. I expect it only to be curtailed by environmental catastrophe. Unless you're willing to volunteer yourself or your child as a sacrifice I'm child-free, so I can look at this objectively.
- jdietrich 9y ago
  >Who's "we" in this context? Homo sapiens. The global fertility rate has more than halved over the last 50 years. The developed world now has a birth rate substantially below replacement. Birth rate in the developing world is falling precipitously, matching the rate of decline that happened in the developed world 50 years ago. This isn't a blip. It isn't speculation. It's an undeniable and epoch-defining change in how our species reproduces. The age of Malthus is over. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN/ https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN/