4 ms·
How is it a bad thing? The only way to deal with climate crisis is to lower the population of the planet down to one billion. Possibly without wars and famines
by chewz 7y ago
How is it a bad thing?
The only way to deal with climate crisis is to lower the population of the planet down to one billion. Possibly without wars and famines.
- throwawayhhakdl 7y agoBecause shrinking populations causes tough economic conditions, which creates wars and famines
- GhettoMaestro 7y ago> How is it a bad thing? Because it conflicts with the internal human desire to reproduce. You effectively are saying "Hey raise your hand if you want your group of people to die out." I'm not shocked that people aren't wild about that.
- chewz 7y ago> it conflicts with the internal human desire to reproduce 1) From the article seems like people are loosing their desire to reproduce anyway. 2) I am no expert in anthropology but the need for having children is very complex and is regulated by the multiple factors (economical, social, political, environmental). As one Bali taxi driver put it to me - "Nowadays you don't need 14 children to tend to a ricefield".
- gumby 7y ago> the internal human desire to reproduce. It's pretty clear throughout recorded history that this is not a universal desire. Huge numbers of people have not only chosen not to have kids, many of whom have consciously traded off the opportunity to reproduce in exchange for other opportunities.
- notadoc 7y agoIt's a biological urge for many, which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. Sure some don't have it, and some control it, but that's clearly not the majority of our species otherwise we wouldn't be so ubiquitous.
- bryanlarsen 7y agoThe biological urge for sex rather than the urge for procreation may explain our ubiquity.
- t34543 7y agoEspecially considering birth control wasn’t available until recently.
- gumby 7y ago> It's a biological urge for many I can't say strongly that you're wrong, but I can say your thesis is most definitely unproven, and there is good counterveiling evidence. Clearly there has and remains enough historical reproduction that humans are pretty much ubiquitous and have affected pretty much the entire surface of the planet. No question. But the why is unknown. Yes there are of course people who feel a need to duplicate their genes (though to my knowledge I've literally only met one person in my 50+ years who said that this was their desire). However different people have many different reasons to intentionally reproduce and demonstrably, when given the ability, a dominant number opt to limit it (this fact is the launching point of the original article). The clearest example is economic: birth rate and income are pretty highly negatively correlated (the US is an outlier but when you double click and look at the income data at higher resolution than national, you see the same thing). I could go into examples of why this might be the case but that could lead to an unnecessary flame war.
- finnh 7y agoBut people are wild about it. Low birth rates in wealthy countries are arrived at by choice. As a US citizen with two kids, I actively chose not to have more. This is my preference (and, in aggregate, the preference of the rest of the US as well). If one or both of them were likely to die before reaching maturity, and my retirement plans assumed they would pay for my dotage... then maybe I'd have more? But that's not the case; as it is I'm happy with my choice to just have two.
- rinchik 7y ago> Because it conflicts with the internal human desire to reproduce You didn't answer the question. If you can't control your basic instinct it doesn't mean that general population reduction will be a "bad" thing. Population control doesn't mean anything "inhumane" at all. As one above said, countries with higher levels of education have better control over population growth naturally. That's one of the solutions to explosive overpopulation: EDUCATION! Overpopulation is a real problem. For the environment, for the climate, and for the future.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago1 billion people using private jets daily would emit a lot more carbon than our current population, let alone our current population in carbon balance. Population control is both a completely infeasible and an ineffective solution to the climate crisis.
- makerofspoons 7y agoFamily planning and educating women are two of the most effective solutions for fighting the climate crisis: https://www.drawdown.org/ https://www.drawdown.org/ Both are population control.
- ta0987 7y agoThe rate at which that happens is the problem. The faster the population declines, the more old people there are relative to young people, the smaller your labor pool is relative to your population, the harder your economy will crash. And yes, the economy crashing does matter, because the poorest and oldest, i.e. the some of the most vulnerable, will be hit the hardest.
- chewz 7y agoThat is political problem. We have designed our world for constant economic growth and governments are reliant on growing tax base. It doesn't need to be that way.
- ta0987 7y agoI'm not sure what you're arguing for. The faster the population falls, the harder the problem is to solve. Whether it's political or not.
- throwawayhhakdl 7y agoI mean, a violent purge of non contributing old people would solve this. But barring that, a world without economic growth is grim. Tons of people virtuously declare that it’s ok if society doesn’t get richer but they don’t really understand what that means and how awful that makes societies function.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- hinkley 7y agoWe have been artificially inflating demand in the West since the end of WWII. Labor for manufacturing has been in decline since the 70’s. You could easily reduce the resource intensity in the West with some cultural shifts. And the next generation may insist. Without disposable income you want things that last.
- notadoc 7y ago>The only way to deal with climate crisis is to lower the population of the planet down to one billion. Possibly without wars and famines. Who decides who gets depopulated? And how? What if those chosen to be depopulated don't want their population lower? Historically, not many peoples willingly sign up for their own genocide, there is usually significant war.
- watwut 7y agoQuite apparently, education and especially general education of women combined with accessible birth control is what can make people have less kids. No genocide necessary.
- w3mmpp 7y agoOh yes, like it will ever happens... Remember, it's mainly developed countries who are childless while poor, uneducated countries, and often war-ridden, continue to explode demographically.