5 ms·

I am all for renewable energy but what worries me the most is that our world population in out of control. At what point do we factor this in and start doing s

I am all for renewable energy but what worries me the most is that our world population in out of control. At what point do we factor this in and start doing something about it? Even with renewable sources of energy can we sustain such growth? I understand nobody wants the government telling them how many kids they can have but I just don't see how we can keep on going this way, and I think a decrease in the population rate would help the climate out as well maybe even more so than renewable energy.

gnclmorais 7y ago
I don’t think it’s the number of people the problem, but rather the demand for resources a few people from the Western world create.
- tremon 7y ago
  That's not an either-or question. Both population growth and per-human resource demand need to decrease for our society to survive the next 100 years.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
jonathanstrange 7y ago
Many predictions of population growth converge to a value between 9 and 12 billion, maybe followed by a slow long-term decline after 2050 or so. This would be high but manageable with proper resource distribution. These are more pessimistic predictions, of course, but the more optimistic ones are based on the observable trend that higher standards of living correlate with lower birth rates.
jhrmnn 7y ago
The world population will saturate around 10B. It's not really something to worry about for two reasons: (1) From what I've read, there's very little that can be done about it in terms of policy. (2) The largest effect has been caused by the exponential growth in the last couple of centuries. The additional 50% won't bring anything radically different.
jillesvangurp 7y ago
Gates has solutions for that too. Lifting people out of poverty by tackling healthcare, nutrition, and education issues, helps improve living standards and is correlated with lower birth rates. E.g. providing energy to villages that currently don't have any so they can turn on the light at night (education) and pump clean water (health), actually helps achieve this.
mcv 7y ago
The growth of the world population is already slowing down. As someone mentioned, it will probably peak at 10 billion. Many countries already have near zero or even negative growth. Increases in prosperity and education do a lot to limit population growth.
- viraptor 7y ago
  This is a nice chart for that: https://www.theatlas.com/charts/HJBLgF8_f https://www.theatlas.com/charts/HJBLgF8_f - compare to https://tradingeconomics.com/south-korea/gdp https://tradingeconomics.com/south-korea/gdp on max range. (If the scale disappears on mobile, it's 1960 - 2015)
chadash 7y ago
I tend to agree with this (but I admit that I haven't given it much thought). For the most part, population growth is far higher in developing countries. As some of the other commenters here point out, population growth tends to slow down as your country gets richer. However, the issue is that the environmental impact of people in rich countries is far higher per capita. Some back of the napkin math: - India population = 1,324,171,354 [0] - India growth rate = 1.19% [0] - India CO2 metric tons per capita = 1.58 [1] Assuming each additional person has the same per capita carbon footprint: 1,324,171,354 * 1.0119 * 1.58 = 2,117,087,809 additional tons CO2/year Compare to the United States: - US population = 328,863,150 [2] - US growth rate = 0.62% [2] - US CO2 metric tons per capita = 15.53 [1] 328,863,150 * 1.0062 * 15.53 = 5,138,909,636 additional tons CO2/year So even though the US has 1/4 the population and a lower growth rate, the growth of carbon footprint is 2.5 times higher. These numbers are obviously very inexact, but the point is that if you believe that the current rate of CO2 output is unsustainable (and this is hard to dispute), then even if the world population levels off, this is likely due to increased prosperity. And increased prosperity means more consumption per capita and more consumption means more carbon footprint (and other environmental damage). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India [1] https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/sc... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_State...
abootstrapper 7y ago
World population growth is said to be slowing down. But, in regards to what to do about it, support good sex education in schools, and support policies and groups that provide easy and free access to birth control options. The best way to combat overpopulation is to help people prevent unwanted pregnancies. Planned Parenthood.

gnclmorais 7y ago

I don’t think it’s the number of people the problem, but rather the demand for resources a few people from the Western world create.

tremon 7y ago
That's not an either-or question. Both population growth and per-human resource demand need to decrease for our society to survive the next 100 years.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

jonathanstrange 7y ago

Many predictions of population growth converge to a value between 9 and 12 billion, maybe followed by a slow long-term decline after 2050 or so. This would be high but manageable with proper resource distribution. These are more pessimistic predictions, of course, but the more optimistic ones are based on the observable trend that higher standards of living correlate with lower birth rates.

jhrmnn 7y ago

The world population will saturate around 10B. It's not really something to worry about for two reasons: (1) From what I've read, there's very little that can be done about it in terms of policy. (2) The largest effect has been caused by the exponential growth in the last couple of centuries. The additional 50% won't bring anything radically different.

jillesvangurp 7y ago

Gates has solutions for that too. Lifting people out of poverty by tackling healthcare, nutrition, and education issues, helps improve living standards and is correlated with lower birth rates. E.g. providing energy to villages that currently don't have any so they can turn on the light at night (education) and pump clean water (health), actually helps achieve this.

mcv 7y ago

The growth of the world population is already slowing down. As someone mentioned, it will probably peak at 10 billion. Many countries already have near zero or even negative growth. Increases in prosperity and education do a lot to limit population growth.

viraptor 7y ago
This is a nice chart for that: https://www.theatlas.com/charts/HJBLgF8_f https://www.theatlas.com/charts/HJBLgF8_f - compare to https://tradingeconomics.com/south-korea/gdp https://tradingeconomics.com/south-korea/gdp on max range. (If the scale disappears on mobile, it's 1960 - 2015)

chadash 7y ago

I tend to agree with this (but I admit that I haven't given it much thought). For the most part, population growth is far higher in developing countries. As some of the other commenters here point out, population growth tends to slow down as your country gets richer. However, the issue is that the environmental impact of people in rich countries is far higher per capita. Some back of the napkin math: - India population = 1,324,171,354 [0] - India growth rate = 1.19% [0] - India CO2 metric tons per capita = 1.58 [1] Assuming each additional person has the same per capita carbon footprint: 1,324,171,354 * 1.0119 * 1.58 = 2,117,087,809 additional tons CO2/year Compare to the United States: - US population = 328,863,150 [2] - US growth rate = 0.62% [2] - US CO2 metric tons per capita = 15.53 [1] 328,863,150 * 1.0062 * 15.53 = 5,138,909,636 additional tons CO2/year So even though the US has 1/4 the population and a lower growth rate, the growth of carbon footprint is 2.5 times higher. These numbers are obviously very inexact, but the point is that if you believe that the current rate of CO2 output is unsustainable (and this is hard to dispute), then even if the world population levels off, this is likely due to increased prosperity. And increased prosperity means more consumption per capita and more consumption means more carbon footprint (and other environmental damage). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India [1] https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/sc... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_State...

abootstrapper 7y ago

World population growth is said to be slowing down. But, in regards to what to do about it, support good sex education in schools, and support policies and groups that provide easy and free access to birth control options. The best way to combat overpopulation is to help people prevent unwanted pregnancies. Planned Parenthood.