5 ms·

As usual, the process is already well underway. Birth rates are dropping fairly rapidly, and we are pretty close to seeing total population hit equilibrium and

by zaroth 7y ago

As usual, the process is already well underway. Birth rates are dropping fairly rapidly, and we are pretty close to seeing total population hit equilibrium and maybe even start declining. Growth rates of 1.14-1.12-1.08 and lower, any predictions when it drops below zero? This site pegs it at 11 billion. [1] Seems like infertility will be a major contributor, combined with technology, income distribution, and massively changing roles of women. Children are all at once the best thing you will ever do, your greatest joy, tremendous pains in the ass, and terrifically expensive. I highly recommend it, and highly advise against it! But seriously anyone who would sign a letter saying we need to reduce population as a solution to climate change doesn’t merely lack imagination, they are actively damaging the goal to which they claim to aspire. The way to fight for climate change is to recruit an ever larger plurality of humans to voting with their dollars and their voices for products and technologies and investments that make the Earth better. The way to fail is to alienate people with bullshit like population control and straw bans which betray a political agenda beyond mere climate. [1] - https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/06/2019-Revision-–-World-Population-Growth-1700-2100.png https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/06/2019-Revision-–-W...

lunias 7y ago
damaging the goal to which they claim to aspire. ... The way to fight for climate change is to recruit an ever larger plurality of humans to voting with their dollars and their voices for products and technologies and investments that make the Earth better. I disagree that total number of humans has anything to do with making the right decisions. The key to favorable plurality has always seemed to be education. I also think that the optimal path forward is easier to ascertain / implement when there are less variables in play. It's possible that by sheer luck a person is born with never before seen capabilities - leading to the extreme betterment of society, but if that were a stated goal then it'd be better to protect our ability to iterate into the distant future than to iterate so fast now that we potentially jeopardize our near future.
chopin 7y ago
No matter what technology, there will be an absolute upper limit of what population earth can bear. So the the discussion can only be what the correct number is, isn't it? And it could well be that the number is lower than the current population. For our current technology, population is way too high. So either we regulate that or nature will do it for us. I have two children and I am grateful for them. But it would be dangerous to miss that we run up to hard limits.
- rlonn 7y ago
  We don't know what the future carrying capacity of earth will be, and wild speculation there helps noone. We do know current carrying capacity appears to be too low but what is the best way to fix that? Is it telling the people who have many kids today - primarily the poor and uneducated - to have fewer kids? Is that likely to work? I believe Hans Rosling is right, who said birth rates are a direct consequence of how rich or poor you are. We've seen hundreds of millions lifted from poverty in the last few decades, with dropping birth rates as a result. The best action has to be to work to lift more out of poverty. Sitting in our ivory tower and declaring that people should have fewer kids is not going to work.
  - bobthepanda 7y ago
    Yeah, if you start declaring that not everybody can have kids, then you‘re in the business of picking who gets to have kids, which would be extremely draconian to impose and enforce and could be done badly in all sorts of ways.
- arvinsim 7y ago
  > So the the discussion can only be what the correct number is, isn't it? And it could well be that the number is lower than the current population. Ok, I agree that this is still up for discussion. > For our current technology, population is way too high. Uhh, you just said that is up for debate.
  - chopin 7y ago
    >Uhh, you just said that is up for debate. Back of the napkin: following Wikipedia world energy consumption is roughly 1/10,000 of the yearly radiation input by the sun. This means about 450,000 km² of area for harvesting if we assume roughly 10% efficiency. This larger than the size of Germany. I don't think this is realistic in the short term. For keeping population only stable at current levels by providing everyone the lifestyle let's say of Europe we would need much more energy than that. For our current technology population is too high in my opinion. I cannot provide a solution but if we strive for providing everyone Europe's life style, nature will show us another way of reducing population, I fear.
option_greek 7y ago
But that is not sufficient for majority of climate activists. Any possible solution should involve pain, sacrifices and high horses. /s
- not_a_cop75 7y ago
  And mass sacrifice. Climate change activists and Aztecs actually have quite a bit in common.

by zaroth 7y ago

lunias 7y ago

damaging the goal to which they claim to aspire. ... The way to fight for climate change is to recruit an ever larger plurality of humans to voting with their dollars and their voices for products and technologies and investments that make the Earth better. I disagree that total number of humans has anything to do with making the right decisions. The key to favorable plurality has always seemed to be education. I also think that the optimal path forward is easier to ascertain / implement when there are less variables in play. It's possible that by sheer luck a person is born with never before seen capabilities - leading to the extreme betterment of society, but if that were a stated goal then it'd be better to protect our ability to iterate into the distant future than to iterate so fast now that we potentially jeopardize our near future.

chopin 7y ago

No matter what technology, there will be an absolute upper limit of what population earth can bear. So the the discussion can only be what the correct number is, isn't it? And it could well be that the number is lower than the current population. For our current technology, population is way too high. So either we regulate that or nature will do it for us. I have two children and I am grateful for them. But it would be dangerous to miss that we run up to hard limits.

rlonn 7y ago
We don't know what the future carrying capacity of earth will be, and wild speculation there helps noone. We do know current carrying capacity appears to be too low but what is the best way to fix that? Is it telling the people who have many kids today - primarily the poor and uneducated - to have fewer kids? Is that likely to work? I believe Hans Rosling is right, who said birth rates are a direct consequence of how rich or poor you are. We've seen hundreds of millions lifted from poverty in the last few decades, with dropping birth rates as a result. The best action has to be to work to lift more out of poverty. Sitting in our ivory tower and declaring that people should have fewer kids is not going to work.
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  Yeah, if you start declaring that not everybody can have kids, then you‘re in the business of picking who gets to have kids, which would be extremely draconian to impose and enforce and could be done badly in all sorts of ways.
arvinsim 7y ago
> So the the discussion can only be what the correct number is, isn't it? And it could well be that the number is lower than the current population. Ok, I agree that this is still up for discussion. > For our current technology, population is way too high. Uhh, you just said that is up for debate.
- chopin 7y ago
  >Uhh, you just said that is up for debate. Back of the napkin: following Wikipedia world energy consumption is roughly 1/10,000 of the yearly radiation input by the sun. This means about 450,000 km² of area for harvesting if we assume roughly 10% efficiency. This larger than the size of Germany. I don't think this is realistic in the short term. For keeping population only stable at current levels by providing everyone the lifestyle let's say of Europe we would need much more energy than that. For our current technology population is too high in my opinion. I cannot provide a solution but if we strive for providing everyone Europe's life style, nature will show us another way of reducing population, I fear.

option_greek 7y ago

But that is not sufficient for majority of climate activists. Any possible solution should involve pain, sacrifices and high horses. /s

not_a_cop75 7y ago
And mass sacrifice. Climate change activists and Aztecs actually have quite a bit in common.