3 ms·

This is a lovely idea, but totally ignorant of global demography[1]. By 2100 there will be >3 billion people living in India and central Africa. Centra Africa i

by Gatsky 7y ago

This is a lovely idea, but totally ignorant of global demography[1]. By 2100 there will be >3 billion people living in India and central Africa. Centra Africa in particular will show some of the greatest population growth. There will be another 300 million people living in the Congo, which is one fifth the size of the USA and a nightmarish war zone most of the time. There will be a stunning 600 million more people in Nigeria, which is even smaller. The irony is that these people will be mostly-vegetarian, use renewable energy and travel by bike, just not by their own choosing. Sheer numbers however will ensure global consumption continues to increase rapidly. I don't know what the solution is, but the lifestyle choices of the Western world will become increasingly irrelevant. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth

kzzy 7y ago
I am amazed that you're blaming future humans in the third world for current issues created by first world consumerism. Sorry but it is an absurd strawman argument and reeks of your privilege.
- Gatsky 7y ago
  You have totally misconstrued what I am saying. I am NOT blaming anyone. My point is that it is a fantasy to think that wealthy westerners can significantly reduce global consumption by choosing to live a certain way. As a thought experiment, how much of a difference would it have made to the world today if the British empire decreed in 1700 that all its subjects adopt more eco friendly lifestyles?
  - irrlichthn 7y ago
    "I'm not going to fix this crash, because next year, there might be a similar bug, and I'm not sure how to fix that yet." I hope you don't code that way.
  - kzzy 7y ago
    No, you have indeed constructed a strawman argument based on prejudiced fears of third world 'population explosion' and poor data. Let me put aside the fact that third world peoples are not sitting around waiting for such explosions to occur and are proactive about and invested in our own resources and prospects. Let me put aside the comparison of the poorest, say, Indians (the strata where such an 'explosion' is likeliest to occur due to a host of social reasons) vs the richest, say, Americans. Even putting all that aside: the per capita consumption of an American is 10 times that of an Indian based on latest data [1]. [1]: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=eg_use_pcap_kg_oe&idim=country:USA:RUS:IRN&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=eg_use_pcap_kg_oe&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA:IND&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&... And this does not at all take into account that so, so much of American consumer goods are manufactured abroad and does not factor into this calculation. Really, please interrogate the kind of prejudice that leads to projections of the kind you have accepted, and the kind of prejudice that then uses it as a rationalization for not course-correcting own behavior.
    - Gatsky 7y ago
      What you propose is in fact prejudicial by ascribing primary importance to American agency, and then furthermore by assuming other cultures have the same priorities. This is the same mistake as hoping China would turn into 1 billion big mac eating coke drinking bona fide neoliberals. Also a demographic trend is not political statement or a value judgement, it is a curve fitting exercise. I never used the word explosion, that’s your word. I am not being alarmist. The long term trend is for population growth to slow if you look at the data.
    - xyzzyz 7y ago
      You completely missed the parent point. American consumption might be 10 times the Indian per capita, but there are way more Indians than Americans, and soon there will be more Congolese and Nigerians and other Africans, and while American consumption is going down, African and Asian consumption is going up. If both USA and EU disappeared today, it would only reduce global emissions by 25%, and that fraction will go down as African and Asian emissions grow. If USA cut its emissions in half, it would reduce global emissions by something like 7%. So yes, we can try to reduce our consumption, but it won't really change a thing in grand scheme of things.

by Gatsky 7y ago

kzzy 7y ago

I am amazed that you're blaming future humans in the third world for current issues created by first world consumerism. Sorry but it is an absurd strawman argument and reeks of your privilege.

Gatsky 7y ago
You have totally misconstrued what I am saying. I am NOT blaming anyone. My point is that it is a fantasy to think that wealthy westerners can significantly reduce global consumption by choosing to live a certain way. As a thought experiment, how much of a difference would it have made to the world today if the British empire decreed in 1700 that all its subjects adopt more eco friendly lifestyles?
- irrlichthn 7y ago
  "I'm not going to fix this crash, because next year, there might be a similar bug, and I'm not sure how to fix that yet." I hope you don't code that way.
- kzzy 7y ago
  No, you have indeed constructed a strawman argument based on prejudiced fears of third world 'population explosion' and poor data. Let me put aside the fact that third world peoples are not sitting around waiting for such explosions to occur and are proactive about and invested in our own resources and prospects. Let me put aside the comparison of the poorest, say, Indians (the strata where such an 'explosion' is likeliest to occur due to a host of social reasons) vs the richest, say, Americans. Even putting all that aside: the per capita consumption of an American is 10 times that of an Indian based on latest data [1]. [1]: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=eg_use_pcap_kg_oe&idim=country:USA:RUS:IRN&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=eg_use_pcap_kg_oe&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA:IND&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&... And this does not at all take into account that so, so much of American consumer goods are manufactured abroad and does not factor into this calculation. Really, please interrogate the kind of prejudice that leads to projections of the kind you have accepted, and the kind of prejudice that then uses it as a rationalization for not course-correcting own behavior.
  - Gatsky 7y ago
    What you propose is in fact prejudicial by ascribing primary importance to American agency, and then furthermore by assuming other cultures have the same priorities. This is the same mistake as hoping China would turn into 1 billion big mac eating coke drinking bona fide neoliberals. Also a demographic trend is not political statement or a value judgement, it is a curve fitting exercise. I never used the word explosion, that’s your word. I am not being alarmist. The long term trend is for population growth to slow if you look at the data.
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    You completely missed the parent point. American consumption might be 10 times the Indian per capita, but there are way more Indians than Americans, and soon there will be more Congolese and Nigerians and other Africans, and while American consumption is going down, African and Asian consumption is going up. If both USA and EU disappeared today, it would only reduce global emissions by 25%, and that fraction will go down as African and Asian emissions grow. If USA cut its emissions in half, it would reduce global emissions by something like 7%. So yes, we can try to reduce our consumption, but it won't really change a thing in grand scheme of things.