4 ms·

This is old (2017) but still fantastic news w/r/t global warming. In a simplified model of: (Population x Consumption x Efficiency) / Resources We can either

This is old (2017) but still fantastic news w/r/t global warming. In a simplified model of: (Population x Consumption x Efficiency) / Resources We can either all consume far less, or there can be less of us. I would rather have half as many people living a 2x more efficient and 4x more luxiourous lifestyle in 2100 than twice as many people fighting for water and arable land.

turc1656 8y ago
Agreed. I've always wondered why everyone freaks out at information like that contained in the article. Controlled, natural decline in my mind is good because there is simply too many people on the planet. The options for addressing that can be lumped into either 1) having society formally or informally agree to depopulate through choices, culture, law, etc. or 2) killing people. No sane person wants #2. So if there is a natural/cultural shift that is moving toward depopulation that's a huge win because the other options are doing something similar to China's previous one child policy or some other method of forcing or providing incentives to have fewer children. As long as society is aware of the trend we can plan accordingly. Demographically, we'll be looking more like Japan, but I don't necessarily see the intrinsic harm in that. The planet has a fixed mass and fixed resources. We can't keep playing this game of "infinite growth forever!" in every aspect of the economy. As the saying goes, "that which cannot continue, will not continue."
- shoo 8y ago
  i think there is a bit of fear of how to stably operate a society that has negative population growth, and/or negative economic growth (not that both of those things are necessarily coupled). we've had a bit of practise over the past handful of decades since the industrial revolution of trying to figure out how to have a roughly stable society under conditions of economic and population growth, perhaps a lot of those rules of thumb need to be thrown-out and rethought
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
vitaflo 8y ago
As a friend of mine says, if everyone stopped having children, the climate change problem would solve itself within 100 years.
- heelhook 8y ago
  why stop there? If we’d go back to the Stone Age the climate change problem would solve itself within 100 years. If CO2 weren’t bad for the environment the climate change problem would solve itself within 100 years. If economic activity didn’t produce negative externalities the climate change problem would solve itself within 100 years. Heck, if a giant magic wand were waved around strong enough we might get it solved in 4 days!

turc1656 8y ago

Agreed. I've always wondered why everyone freaks out at information like that contained in the article. Controlled, natural decline in my mind is good because there is simply too many people on the planet. The options for addressing that can be lumped into either 1) having society formally or informally agree to depopulate through choices, culture, law, etc. or 2) killing people. No sane person wants #2. So if there is a natural/cultural shift that is moving toward depopulation that's a huge win because the other options are doing something similar to China's previous one child policy or some other method of forcing or providing incentives to have fewer children. As long as society is aware of the trend we can plan accordingly. Demographically, we'll be looking more like Japan, but I don't necessarily see the intrinsic harm in that. The planet has a fixed mass and fixed resources. We can't keep playing this game of "infinite growth forever!" in every aspect of the economy. As the saying goes, "that which cannot continue, will not continue."

shoo 8y ago
i think there is a bit of fear of how to stably operate a society that has negative population growth, and/or negative economic growth (not that both of those things are necessarily coupled). we've had a bit of practise over the past handful of decades since the industrial revolution of trying to figure out how to have a roughly stable society under conditions of economic and population growth, perhaps a lot of those rules of thumb need to be thrown-out and rethought

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

vitaflo 8y ago

As a friend of mine says, if everyone stopped having children, the climate change problem would solve itself within 100 years.

heelhook 8y ago
why stop there? If we’d go back to the Stone Age the climate change problem would solve itself within 100 years. If CO2 weren’t bad for the environment the climate change problem would solve itself within 100 years. If economic activity didn’t produce negative externalities the climate change problem would solve itself within 100 years. Heck, if a giant magic wand were waved around strong enough we might get it solved in 4 days!