6 ms·

Just a quick question: why Greta is not talking about world overpopulation? I think it's a huge problem. The more we are on this planet, the more mess we make.

by sunseb 7y ago

Just a quick question: why Greta is not talking about world overpopulation? I think it's a huge problem. The more we are on this planet, the more mess we make. And by the way, it's too easy to shame western countries to be the root of all evil in this world.

thelazydogsback 7y ago
Agreed. At some point we have to realize that as a species we don't all have the "right" to reproduce as much as we want. Technically the earth together with technology should be able to support quite a bit more population, but given that we're not willing to make any sacrifices in the behavior of the living, limiting growth until we do is the other option. But telling someone they can't make babies is the only thing worse for a politician than saying you can't drive your big-ass car around or consume and throw away all the crap you like...
- monkeynotes 7y ago
  At least telling people not to drive big cars and consume leaves increasingly more people feeling good about themselves.
monkeynotes 7y ago
Probably because the subject attacks the fundamental instinct to procreate. How do you tell a couple that they legally can't have children? Many of my friends define their lives around having a family, it gives people a deep, and rewarding purpose.
- sunseb 7y ago
  You are right and I must say it's ok to have kids in the US or in Europa (because population growth is declining here), but I am talking about Africa or South Asia, as they are having more and more kids there, and all these kids end up living in extreme poverty and having no hope for the future. For example, each year, Nigeria has 6 millions more people to feed (Nigerian women have an average of 5.5 children).
  - securingsincity 7y ago
    Most of the world is having only 2 kids per family. The most consistent way to reduce the number of children per family is to increase the income of that family. https://www.gapminder.org/answers/will-saving-poor-children-lead-to-overpopulation/ https://www.gapminder.org/answers/will-saving-poor-children-... https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$state$marker$axis_x$domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin:null&zoomedMax:null&scaleType=genericLog&spaceRef:null;&axis_y$which=children_per_woman_total_fertility&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin:null&zoomedMax:null&spaceRef:null;;;&chart-type=bubbles https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$state$marker$axis_x$domain...
- etrautmann 7y ago
  The deep and rewarding purpose necessarily must be separated from the carrying capacity of the world. There are plenty of families with 12+ kids, but this clearly isn't something that would be possible to sustain for all couples. This is a fundamental tragedy of the commons. I feel guilty about even wanting to have two kids at some point due to the climate impact. Everywhere I look I see people having large families without caring. This has to be balanced long term for our species (and others) to survive centuries from now.
- serf 7y ago
  >Many of my friends define their lives around having a family, it gives people a deep, and rewarding purpose. Speaking as bluntly as I can here : if you want to have kids to gain a 'deep and rewarding purpose' because you somehow feel lacking in purpose, please don't have children. It's analogous to a teenager that joins the military out of high school because "they don't know what they want to do.". Figure things out, then make a decision. Don't make some big brash decision in order to figure things out. The only 'depth' that might added to your life may actually just be unenjoyable complexity and nuance.
Miner49er 7y ago
It's certainly possible to keep population growing at the rate it is and still end global warming. Is it harder? Sure. But it's possible. More people is more labor to fix things. The labor just needs to be used correctly, and consumption needs to be reduced and changed. Talking about overpopulation and "shaming Western countries" sounds a bit like a Trojan horse for some racist policies, considering that population is growing the most in non-western countries.
- jansan 7y ago
  The labor just needs to be used correctly, and consumption needs to be reduced and changed. IMHO the opposite is happening. Former developing countries are raising their living standards dramatically, which inevitably results in a larger economic footprint per capita. Also, migration to developed countries usually increases the living standard of the migrants, but this also increases their economic footprint. I just do not see where consumption is being reduced.
hashberry 7y ago
"How dare you have more than two children?" It's easier to blame capitalism and lecture to politicians instead of poor third-world families.
Isinlor 7y ago
Because there is no world overpopulation. People talk about overpopulation since ancient times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation#History_of_concern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation#History_o... Currently standard of living are growing almost all over the world and human population is predicted to pick and stabilize at around 11 billion. I really recommend "DON'T PANIC — Hans Rosling showing the facts about population" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E What's also interesting in his video is the fact that people tend to be very misinformed about state of the world affairs. E.g. when asked questions about certain statistics, they do worse than random. And the better educated you are the more misinformed you may be.
- viklove 7y ago
  If the global population was still 2 billion as in the early 1900s, I'm certain we wouldn't have a climate crisis anywhere near the scale we're seeing today. We should be panicking, and I don't understand why our population should be allowed to grow until the Earth literally cannot sustain it. We're an intelligent and evolved species, and we'd all be better off exercising some self-control and keeping our population in check. And yes, I would gladly give up my right to procreate. I have no interest in having children, primarily because I believe it's a terrible thing to do in today's world.
  - papermachete 7y ago
    If we're going the totalitarian route, why not designate kids and force them to grow up to be scientists. Make them work for minimal wage on what are today billion dollar R&D, all for finding a solution to the so-called crisis? After all, human procreation is a naturally occuring event and it is the failure of science to produce a solution for the consequences and politicians - to adopt it.
    - viklove 7y ago
      > After all, human procreation is a naturally occuring event and it is the failure of science to produce a solution for the consequences and politicians - to adopt it. Yes, the solution is to stop thinking of procreation as a naturally occurring event and to instead limit each person to 1 living offspring (so each couple can produce 2 children). By the way, science doesn't provide solutions (that's engineering). Science only provides explanations.
thibran 7y ago
> ... not talking about world overpopulation? Because its not an issue any more. The world wide population is stabilizing. Most countries of the earth will face a population collapse in the next 30 years.
- jansan 7y ago
  Sorry, this is bullshit. Even the UN estimates slowing growth for the next 80 years, but not a "collapse" or anything near that. And historically growth projections have been to low, so there is a fair chance the world population will continue to grow substantially for the next 100 years.

by sunseb 7y ago

thelazydogsback 7y ago

Agreed. At some point we have to realize that as a species we don't all have the "right" to reproduce as much as we want. Technically the earth together with technology should be able to support quite a bit more population, but given that we're not willing to make any sacrifices in the behavior of the living, limiting growth until we do is the other option. But telling someone they can't make babies is the only thing worse for a politician than saying you can't drive your big-ass car around or consume and throw away all the crap you like...

monkeynotes 7y ago
At least telling people not to drive big cars and consume leaves increasingly more people feeling good about themselves.

monkeynotes 7y ago

Probably because the subject attacks the fundamental instinct to procreate. How do you tell a couple that they legally can't have children? Many of my friends define their lives around having a family, it gives people a deep, and rewarding purpose.

sunseb 7y ago
You are right and I must say it's ok to have kids in the US or in Europa (because population growth is declining here), but I am talking about Africa or South Asia, as they are having more and more kids there, and all these kids end up living in extreme poverty and having no hope for the future. For example, each year, Nigeria has 6 millions more people to feed (Nigerian women have an average of 5.5 children).
- securingsincity 7y ago
  Most of the world is having only 2 kids per family. The most consistent way to reduce the number of children per family is to increase the income of that family. https://www.gapminder.org/answers/will-saving-poor-children-lead-to-overpopulation/ https://www.gapminder.org/answers/will-saving-poor-children-... https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$state$marker$axis_x$domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin:null&zoomedMax:null&scaleType=genericLog&spaceRef:null;&axis_y$which=children_per_woman_total_fertility&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin:null&zoomedMax:null&spaceRef:null;;;&chart-type=bubbles https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$state$marker$axis_x$domain...
etrautmann 7y ago
The deep and rewarding purpose necessarily must be separated from the carrying capacity of the world. There are plenty of families with 12+ kids, but this clearly isn't something that would be possible to sustain for all couples. This is a fundamental tragedy of the commons. I feel guilty about even wanting to have two kids at some point due to the climate impact. Everywhere I look I see people having large families without caring. This has to be balanced long term for our species (and others) to survive centuries from now.
serf 7y ago
>Many of my friends define their lives around having a family, it gives people a deep, and rewarding purpose. Speaking as bluntly as I can here : if you want to have kids to gain a 'deep and rewarding purpose' because you somehow feel lacking in purpose, please don't have children. It's analogous to a teenager that joins the military out of high school because "they don't know what they want to do.". Figure things out, then make a decision. Don't make some big brash decision in order to figure things out. The only 'depth' that might added to your life may actually just be unenjoyable complexity and nuance.

Miner49er 7y ago

It's certainly possible to keep population growing at the rate it is and still end global warming. Is it harder? Sure. But it's possible. More people is more labor to fix things. The labor just needs to be used correctly, and consumption needs to be reduced and changed. Talking about overpopulation and "shaming Western countries" sounds a bit like a Trojan horse for some racist policies, considering that population is growing the most in non-western countries.

jansan 7y ago
The labor just needs to be used correctly, and consumption needs to be reduced and changed. IMHO the opposite is happening. Former developing countries are raising their living standards dramatically, which inevitably results in a larger economic footprint per capita. Also, migration to developed countries usually increases the living standard of the migrants, but this also increases their economic footprint. I just do not see where consumption is being reduced.

hashberry 7y ago

"How dare you have more than two children?" It's easier to blame capitalism and lecture to politicians instead of poor third-world families.

Isinlor 7y ago

Because there is no world overpopulation. People talk about overpopulation since ancient times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation#History_of_concern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation#History_o... Currently standard of living are growing almost all over the world and human population is predicted to pick and stabilize at around 11 billion. I really recommend "DON'T PANIC — Hans Rosling showing the facts about population" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E What's also interesting in his video is the fact that people tend to be very misinformed about state of the world affairs. E.g. when asked questions about certain statistics, they do worse than random. And the better educated you are the more misinformed you may be.

viklove 7y ago
If the global population was still 2 billion as in the early 1900s, I'm certain we wouldn't have a climate crisis anywhere near the scale we're seeing today. We should be panicking, and I don't understand why our population should be allowed to grow until the Earth literally cannot sustain it. We're an intelligent and evolved species, and we'd all be better off exercising some self-control and keeping our population in check. And yes, I would gladly give up my right to procreate. I have no interest in having children, primarily because I believe it's a terrible thing to do in today's world.
- papermachete 7y ago
  If we're going the totalitarian route, why not designate kids and force them to grow up to be scientists. Make them work for minimal wage on what are today billion dollar R&D, all for finding a solution to the so-called crisis? After all, human procreation is a naturally occuring event and it is the failure of science to produce a solution for the consequences and politicians - to adopt it.
  - viklove 7y ago
    > After all, human procreation is a naturally occuring event and it is the failure of science to produce a solution for the consequences and politicians - to adopt it. Yes, the solution is to stop thinking of procreation as a naturally occurring event and to instead limit each person to 1 living offspring (so each couple can produce 2 children). By the way, science doesn't provide solutions (that's engineering). Science only provides explanations.

thibran 7y ago

> ... not talking about world overpopulation? Because its not an issue any more. The world wide population is stabilizing. Most countries of the earth will face a population collapse in the next 30 years.

jansan 7y ago
Sorry, this is bullshit. Even the UN estimates slowing growth for the next 80 years, but not a "collapse" or anything near that. And historically growth projections have been to low, so there is a fair chance the world population will continue to grow substantially for the next 100 years.