4 ms·
I think the question of what is the optimum human population of a country, continent, planet that maximizes prosperity and welfare is an interesting one. Yet,
by a008t 8y ago
I think the question of what is the optimum human population of a country, continent, planet that maximizes prosperity and welfare is an interesting one.
Yet, apart from the problem of humans still having to be in actual close physical proximity to each other for economic activity, which results in housing problems in major cities, I do not see the signs of overpopulation or too much economic activity in Western countries. If anything, the situation in terms of the ecology seems to be getting better, not worse.
- partycoder 8y agoNo, ecology is not getting better. If you haven't noticed you are in the middle of an extinction event.
- emodendroket 8y agoIn what way is ecology getting better, rather than rapidly worse?
- a008t 8y agoCar emissions are getting cleaner, leading to cleaner air. That would be one example. Deindustrialization of the West led to improvements in ecology as well, I imagine.
- emodendroket 8y ago> Car emissions are getting cleaner, leading to cleaner air. That would be one example. Is it enough? Aren't these changes being more than offset by increased emissions elsewhere? > Deindustrialization of the West led to improvements in ecology as well, I imagine. It seems doubtful, since production didn't stop but simply moved to other places, often with much looser regulatory regimes.
- partycoder 8y agoCar emissions are dwarfed by industrial and agricultural emissions. Plus, before an electric car is used for the first time, it already generated more carbon than the dirtiest of non-electric cars during its manufacturing. Then, if factories move from one country to another, with a higher carbon footprint, the global emissions don't go down. You are just moving [while increasing] emissions to somewhere else. So, the "cleaner environment" is just a local phenomenon and a global level it is not the case.