4 ms·

The Earth's population keeps on increasing yet we are now facing the most prominent threat to us as a species. This cannot go on forever if we don't start putt

The Earth's population keeps on increasing yet we are now facing the most prominent threat to us as a species. This cannot go on forever if we don't start putting a maximum cap on our population, then we are heading for a disaster and the Earth itself is going to start doing what we have refused to do so so far. Except that the reduction of our population will happen through heatwaves, pandemics, droughts... Then what?

devoply 7y ago
Population follows production which is a result of technology and progress which is intrinsically linked with capitalism. Take away the population and consumption will still not decrease (as those left over will simply consume more) and neither will the pollution it produces. It's just an easy out to say hey if we could just get those other people to stop producing more people we'd be set though we know that's not really true. They don't consume nor produce nearly as much pollution, money, or technology as your average developed world person. That being said yes we need to drastically reduce the population, but that really can't be done and will have to happen itself by appealing to the vanity and self-interest of people once they are integrated into the logic of the modern religion. Though as I said that still will not solve the problem. But hey at least there will be fewer people. And if you think that this is not true, that development leads to declining population then why are all the rich countries still growing through immigration? Their local population has stopped reproducing due to logic of the markets and self-interest and narcissism sure but they continue to grow and if they stop growing everyone talks of it as if it's a horrible thing.
rexpop 7y ago
> the reduction of our population What a dangerous idea. Besides, it's not the issue of absolute population: it's emissions per capita that we should care about. We could be doing a lot better per capita in these dimensions: - plastics & packaging, - energy use, - military pollution, - advertising & marketing bullshit, - bullshit products manufacturing There's a lot of inefficiency in current economy, which is supported by industrial consent manufacturing.
- vraid 7y ago
  The atmosphere doesn't care how much or little we emit per capita. Total emissions is what should worry us.
  - rexpop 7y ago
    You do realize that total emissions are a function of emissions per capita, yes?
    - vraid 7y ago
      The reason we care about emissions is due to their effect on the atmosphere, of which there is one. We don't get a free pass to emit more as our population increases. The atmosphere doesn't magically adjust. The effect of emissions on the climate is invariant of our population, and we need to act accordingly.
      - rexpop 7y ago
        This environmental journalist has a better grasp on the argument: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/1635652...

devoply 7y ago

Population follows production which is a result of technology and progress which is intrinsically linked with capitalism. Take away the population and consumption will still not decrease (as those left over will simply consume more) and neither will the pollution it produces. It's just an easy out to say hey if we could just get those other people to stop producing more people we'd be set though we know that's not really true. They don't consume nor produce nearly as much pollution, money, or technology as your average developed world person. That being said yes we need to drastically reduce the population, but that really can't be done and will have to happen itself by appealing to the vanity and self-interest of people once they are integrated into the logic of the modern religion. Though as I said that still will not solve the problem. But hey at least there will be fewer people. And if you think that this is not true, that development leads to declining population then why are all the rich countries still growing through immigration? Their local population has stopped reproducing due to logic of the markets and self-interest and narcissism sure but they continue to grow and if they stop growing everyone talks of it as if it's a horrible thing.

rexpop 7y ago

> the reduction of our population What a dangerous idea. Besides, it's not the issue of absolute population: it's emissions per capita that we should care about. We could be doing a lot better per capita in these dimensions: - plastics & packaging, - energy use, - military pollution, - advertising & marketing bullshit, - bullshit products manufacturing There's a lot of inefficiency in current economy, which is supported by industrial consent manufacturing.

vraid 7y ago
The atmosphere doesn't care how much or little we emit per capita. Total emissions is what should worry us.
- rexpop 7y ago
  You do realize that total emissions are a function of emissions per capita, yes?
  - vraid 7y ago
    The reason we care about emissions is due to their effect on the atmosphere, of which there is one. We don't get a free pass to emit more as our population increases. The atmosphere doesn't magically adjust. The effect of emissions on the climate is invariant of our population, and we need to act accordingly.
    - rexpop 7y ago
      This environmental journalist has a better grasp on the argument: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/1635652...