4 ms·
This is a non-solution. Its basically saying, why don't we just go back to living like before we had technology. That is not gone happen because people want do
by nickik 7y ago
This is a non-solution. Its basically saying, why don't we just go back to living like before we had technology. That is not gone happen because people want do those things and consume those things. And people already have made those decisions.
The people who were predicting doom because of population were utterly and completely wrong and have been for 50+ years now. Just as terrible a prediction as those who predicted 'Peak Coal' in 1870. Guys like Borlaug are good at what they do but their understanding of the economy is incredibly limited.
The idea that population was the big issue is just fundamentally flawed assumption. The idea that population growth needs to end in order not to have a huge catastrophe is also incredibly flawed.
And add to all that, we can have both population and consumption growth at the same time, and we had that for a long time now and we can continue to do it for a long time. The energy inherent in the LITERAL DIRT on the ground alone could power advanced human civilization for 1000s of years and that is before we even start considering space based resources.
Simply put, with the 3x3x3 Cube of Dirt from where you are now, you have enough Thorium to literally power your whole life, including flying around with airplanes, driving and so on.
In fact we can do that AND at the same time reduce the amount of space people actually life on. Forest and other nature preserves are growing in the Western world. Increasingly people will live in population centers and more and more of the land around will have little actual use other then looking at it.
- zelos 7y agoFrom wikipedia[1], annual CO2 emissions per capita in the US are 16.1 tons, while for many European countries it's around 6 tons. I understand that there are emissions that aren't included there (like things manufactured elsewhere and imported), but I don't think those are significantly different between the EU and the US? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
- nickik 7y agoNot sure where I claimed there was no difference. Yes and by far the biggest difference is with countries that use nuclear like France, Switzerland, Sweden. Many of those gains, can absolutely not be achieved by US population 'purely improving their lives, before difficult decisions'. That is simply not the case. It would require a total change in energy and transportation policy. Massively increasing the price of gas and flying. Changes in the way they live. And so on. A comparative person living in New York City, Berlin, London is already not that different.
- programmernews3 7y agoI agree that improving our energy generation is important. But we must also get over the idea that we need mass immigration into the West. The most environmentally friendly thing to do is accept a slow decline in absolute population numbers. This will mean roads are not as busy, hospitals not full to bursting and the chance to improve the kids to teacher ratio.
- nickik 7y agoI just want those people that want children to have them, and those that don't now. We don't need a global or national policy on how much population we want. In fact, we are currently subsiding families. I tend to oppose that, but not because of fear of overpopulation. Most roads are already not used often, its really just a few roads that are to full. And in those cases its really a density problem that we are not gone solve by having slightly less children. For the rest I don't think population is the issue. The issue is with how those markets are organized. More people means you can have more teachers, not just more children. Currently the ratio is going down already, so I this is happening automatically anyway.