3 ms·
Okay, I'll bite. Overpopulation certainly could be a concern in the future, but we aren't there yet, and things seem to be moving in the right direction. Over t
by thescriptkiddie 7y ago
Okay, I'll bite. Overpopulation certainly could be a concern in the future, but we aren't there yet, and things seem to be moving in the right direction. Over the past half-century we have seen birth rates dropping fast, particularly in the "third world", and many "first world" countries are already below replacement rates. Add in the fact that the average human has a dramatically smaller environmental footprint than the average American, and it becomes clear that the problem is not the number of people, but the inefficient use of resources. We have enough to provide for everyone, it just isn't evenly distributed.
- lunias 7y agoI think all of your points are valid, but I'm not convinced that there is only one best solution worth pursuing. For instance, reframing the issue as a problem with the distribution of resources makes sense, but I wonder to what extent the actual problem is people's unwillingness to distribute themselves; i.e. go closer to where the resources are. People want to live where the people are; where the things and the jobs are, and it's these overpopulated urban / industrial centers that people collect in which have the large environmental footprints. Basically, the population is sustainable if people decide to change their values; move out of cities, distribute themselves across the available land, participate in self-sufficient local economies / work remotely, etc. I just don't believe that betting on people changing according to some timeline to be a winning bet.