3 ms·

Population growth is already slowing due to decrease in fertility, increase in education, etc. Is the absolute value of the population the issue or is resources

Population growth is already slowing due to decrease in fertility, increase in education, etc. Is the absolute value of the population the issue or is resources used/carbon output, per capita, a more significant problem? Between 2019 and 2050, populations are projected to decrease by one per cent or more in 55 countries or areas, of which 26 may see a reduction of at least ten per cent. In China, for example, the population is projected to decrease by 31.4 million, or around 2.2 per cent, between 2019 and 2050.[1] [1] - https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2019.html https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world...

vzidex 7y ago
Agreed, based off the following data [1]: India: 7% global emissions, 1.34B people China: 30% global emissions, 1.39B people USA: 15% global emissions, 327.2M people EU-28: 9% of global emissions, 513.5M people India and the EU handily demonstrate that you can have large populations with far less of a per-capita impact than other Western countries like the US, or other rapidly-developing countries like China. What is also concerning is the rise of fascist rhetoric based on the idea that our population is too large - I've seen statements of the population being too large rapidly followed by pointing fingers at India/China and suggestions of reducing/controlling the population there.
spodek 7y ago
> Is the absolute value of the population the issue or is resources used/carbon output, per capita, a more significant problem? Both are problems. We are over the carrying capacity so we are bringing on collapse, even if rate of growth is decreasing, which still means the total number is increasing. The numbers I've seen suggest the population that could sustain living around the world average consumption is roughly the population before the Haber-Bosch process enabled us to feed ourselves fossil fuels -- about 2 billion. Could 7.6 or 10 billion live on 20% of that per capita? Why bother asking when families with 1 child can be filled with as much love as families with more? All the knee-jerk responses to lowering birth rate pale in comparison to dealing with the problems we will face from nature. That's why we need to talk about population, even more than peat.

vzidex 7y ago

Agreed, based off the following data [1]: India: 7% global emissions, 1.34B people China: 30% global emissions, 1.39B people USA: 15% global emissions, 327.2M people EU-28: 9% of global emissions, 513.5M people India and the EU handily demonstrate that you can have large populations with far less of a per-capita impact than other Western countries like the US, or other rapidly-developing countries like China. What is also concerning is the rise of fascist rhetoric based on the idea that our population is too large - I've seen statements of the population being too large rapidly followed by pointing fingers at India/China and suggestions of reducing/controlling the population there.

spodek 7y ago

> Is the absolute value of the population the issue or is resources used/carbon output, per capita, a more significant problem? Both are problems. We are over the carrying capacity so we are bringing on collapse, even if rate of growth is decreasing, which still means the total number is increasing. The numbers I've seen suggest the population that could sustain living around the world average consumption is roughly the population before the Haber-Bosch process enabled us to feed ourselves fossil fuels -- about 2 billion. Could 7.6 or 10 billion live on 20% of that per capita? Why bother asking when families with 1 child can be filled with as much love as families with more? All the knee-jerk responses to lowering birth rate pale in comparison to dealing with the problems we will face from nature. That's why we need to talk about population, even more than peat.