4 ms·

Apologies, but I am not sure about what you're trying to say. Yes, pollution is not evenly distributed across countries and populations, but that does not mean

by rocgf 7y ago

Apologies, but I am not sure about what you're trying to say. Yes, pollution is not evenly distributed across countries and populations, but that does not mean that the original idea is wrong. The truth is that overpopulation is a huge issue, but it is politically incorrect to bring this up. Given that our economy is really a Ponzi scheme, nobody wants to touch this topic. Everybody talks about declining fertility rates like a huge catastrophe, when in fact, that's some really good news.

joefourier 7y ago
And how do you plan on solving overpopulation? Rich countries already have birthrates below replacement threshold. Do you think that reducing them in India, Nigeria and other developing countries is the most effective and feasible way of combating CO2 emissions? I think not. While the number of humans certainly contributes to the total amount of pollution, it is not, in my opinion, the "only environmental problem".
- rocgf 7y ago
  Apologies for being blunt, but you are heavily strawmanning. I don't think anyone said that it is "the only environmental problem" anywhere in this thread, and especially not me. I did not say it is the only environmental problem, but I am saying it is among the big ones. It is completely illogical to say that it is not. If you agree with the fact that consumption leads to pollution, then you agree with my premise whether you like it or not, it's simply a logical conclusion. > Do you think that reducing them in India, Nigeria and other developing countries is the most effective and feasible way of combating CO2 emissions? Again, kind of strawmanning here. I never said it is the most efficient way to tackle it, but we need to realise that if our population keeps going up, the problem will become more and more exacerbated.
naasking 7y ago
> The truth is that overpopulation is a huge issue, but it is politically incorrect to bring this up. It's really not an issue. Negative externalities associated with the environment is a huge issue, and population decline will become a big issue in about 80 years.
- rocgf 7y ago
  > It's really not an issue. Really? As an extreme example, are you saying that if our planet only had only 1 million people, we'd have the exact same problem? This holds for 1 billion or 3 billion instead of the almost 8 billion we're going to get to soon. Population decline will become an issue _economically_. Environmentally, it's great.
  - naasking 7y ago
    > As an extreme example, are you saying that if our planet only had only 1 million people, we'd have the exact same problem? Our planet could in principle support hundreds of billions as long as you're not married to the idea of preserving biodiversity.
    - rocgf 7y ago
      If you separate this conversation from reality and strip any sort of relevant context, then yes, population and pollution are orthogonal concerns. What you're saying is "if human existence didn't cause externalities, then a growing population would no be an environmental problem". Preserving biodiversity is not desirable just to stroke our egos, it is actually vital for our world to continue. If we actually talk about the real world, without unrealistic hypotheticals, and without circular arguments, then you can't possibly be right. Every extra human born pollutes and has an environmental impact. We are very far away from bringing that to zero and, unless we do, population growth is an environmental problem.
      - naasking 7y ago
        > If you separate this conversation from reality and strip any sort of relevant context, then yes, population and pollution are orthogonal concerns. What you're saying is "if human existence didn't cause externalities, then a growing population would no be an environmental problem". Not exactly. I'm saying that problems are always caused when negative externalities are not accounted for, therefore the problem of not accounting for negative externalities is literally to account for negative externalities. The population size is a complete red herring to this basic fact. The fact that a low population entails that we can ignore certain externalities is completely uninteresting. > Every extra human born pollutes and has an environmental impact. We are very far away from bringing that to zero and, unless we do, population growth is an environmental problem. It will never be zero. So what? Population growth for affluent nations is already negative. Growth rate falls as a nation enjoys better health care and more opportunities, which is why global population will start falling in about 80 years. Population growth clearly has a form of autoregulation. What's not autoregulating are negative externalities of common goods, by definition. That's why population growth is not a problem and negative externalities are.

by rocgf 7y ago

joefourier 7y ago

And how do you plan on solving overpopulation? Rich countries already have birthrates below replacement threshold. Do you think that reducing them in India, Nigeria and other developing countries is the most effective and feasible way of combating CO2 emissions? I think not. While the number of humans certainly contributes to the total amount of pollution, it is not, in my opinion, the "only environmental problem".

rocgf 7y ago
Apologies for being blunt, but you are heavily strawmanning. I don't think anyone said that it is "the only environmental problem" anywhere in this thread, and especially not me. I did not say it is the only environmental problem, but I am saying it is among the big ones. It is completely illogical to say that it is not. If you agree with the fact that consumption leads to pollution, then you agree with my premise whether you like it or not, it's simply a logical conclusion. > Do you think that reducing them in India, Nigeria and other developing countries is the most effective and feasible way of combating CO2 emissions? Again, kind of strawmanning here. I never said it is the most efficient way to tackle it, but we need to realise that if our population keeps going up, the problem will become more and more exacerbated.

naasking 7y ago

> The truth is that overpopulation is a huge issue, but it is politically incorrect to bring this up. It's really not an issue. Negative externalities associated with the environment is a huge issue, and population decline will become a big issue in about 80 years.

rocgf 7y ago
> It's really not an issue. Really? As an extreme example, are you saying that if our planet only had only 1 million people, we'd have the exact same problem? This holds for 1 billion or 3 billion instead of the almost 8 billion we're going to get to soon. Population decline will become an issue _economically_. Environmentally, it's great.
- naasking 7y ago
  > As an extreme example, are you saying that if our planet only had only 1 million people, we'd have the exact same problem? Our planet could in principle support hundreds of billions as long as you're not married to the idea of preserving biodiversity.
  - rocgf 7y ago
    If you separate this conversation from reality and strip any sort of relevant context, then yes, population and pollution are orthogonal concerns. What you're saying is "if human existence didn't cause externalities, then a growing population would no be an environmental problem". Preserving biodiversity is not desirable just to stroke our egos, it is actually vital for our world to continue. If we actually talk about the real world, without unrealistic hypotheticals, and without circular arguments, then you can't possibly be right. Every extra human born pollutes and has an environmental impact. We are very far away from bringing that to zero and, unless we do, population growth is an environmental problem.
    - naasking 7y ago
      > If you separate this conversation from reality and strip any sort of relevant context, then yes, population and pollution are orthogonal concerns. What you're saying is "if human existence didn't cause externalities, then a growing population would no be an environmental problem". Not exactly. I'm saying that problems are always caused when negative externalities are not accounted for, therefore the problem of not accounting for negative externalities is literally to account for negative externalities. The population size is a complete red herring to this basic fact. The fact that a low population entails that we can ignore certain externalities is completely uninteresting. > Every extra human born pollutes and has an environmental impact. We are very far away from bringing that to zero and, unless we do, population growth is an environmental problem. It will never be zero. So what? Population growth for affluent nations is already negative. Growth rate falls as a nation enjoys better health care and more opportunities, which is why global population will start falling in about 80 years. Population growth clearly has a form of autoregulation. What's not autoregulating are negative externalities of common goods, by definition. That's why population growth is not a problem and negative externalities are.