4 ms·

I wouldn't say that your premise a) is uncontroversial - it's estimated that the global population will become stationary by 2050 or 2040, not limited by simply

I wouldn't say that your premise a) is uncontroversial - it's estimated that the global population will become stationary by 2050 or 2040, not limited by simply lots of people being born and even more dieing from starvation but a globally decreasing birth rate. I.e. people adapt to the environment by having fewer children, because they don't need as many for their family to survive.

oerpli 8y ago
Indeed, that is correct. Though I think that most people enjoy having children but the economic circumstances and expectations make it hard to have them. I personally believe that fertility rates will go up again, due to two things: - YIMBYs (/reason) will prevail and at some point and living in constrained areas will get more affordable - Social expectations will change. Having children in school was a bad idea a few decades ago (when school was from 6-18/20). If the majority of people spend their 20s in some sort of school these social norms have less reason to exist and will likely fade at some point. And even if I'm wrong in both cases, I would assume that the rising population in southern countries will offset losses in the northern countries.
xbmcuser 8y ago
2050 the population will be 20% more than current levels we already are producing more carbon and other polutants than the world can handle . It does not matter if the population will stagnate in the future as current population is already to high.
- Ntrails 8y ago
  #TeamThanos There is a huge difference between the population flattening out and continuing to grow strongly. Whilst you are broadly correct, that we need to solve for 120% current - that's obviously easier than solving for 200% current.