12 ms·

Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the climate crisis

48 points by makerofspoons 6y ago

AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
A quote: > 69 days to save the earth: ... hovering over all of these is whether the US will play its role in helping take collective responsibility for the future of the planet. Looks like a scenario for a movie with Bruce Willis.
jl6 6y ago
But although population growth in low-impact poorer nations has a small impact today, those peoples will one day (hopefully) be wealthy and high-impact, and at that point we’ll surely wish there weren’t so many. High-impact wealthy people definitely need to ratchet down their consumption, but why can we not also address overpopulation at the same time?
- bdjsjsbdb 6y ago
  The point is that there's no future where everyone consumes as much as today's average American. You either: a) reduce the consumption of the globally wealthy (this includes most Americans) b) keep the globally impoverished poor to keep their consumption low c) add in some eugenics and stop the poor people from having more kids with the promise that one day you'll let them consume the same way you already do You're basically proposing 3, which is asking poor people to voluntarily not have kids so one day they can have what you already have by accident of birth
  - dencodev 6y ago
    I'm an American and had a vasectomy and one of the bigger reasons was that I don't want have kids that continue to contribute to the destruction of our planet by just being regular Americans. I felt like it was the biggest single contribution I could make for environmentalism. I also ride an electric bike, live in the PNW where I use barely any heat or AC, limit meat and dairy intake, and generally just don't buy stuff unless really needed.
    - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
      > I don't want have kids that continue to contribute to the destruction of our planet by just being regular Americans. ... so that the planet is preserved for the descendants of less environmentally responsible human beings?
      - dencodev 6y ago
        Yes. Just because someone is irresponsible and votes for governments that actively work to let these awful things happen doesn't mean they deserve to die from the effects of climate change.
        dencodev 6y ago
        HN downvotes the weirdest things.
    - spacephysics 6y ago
      And here is where environmentalism becomes anti-human, and frankly cult like. Nothing against vasectomies, I’ll probably get one once I have a few kids. But putting the environment before the propagation of our species is unique to us, and I think a sinister thought pattern. Oh well, if enough extreme environmentalists share the same thought, then there will be no more extreme environmentalists. I’m all for doing our part to reduce greenhouse gases, and pollution. But not at the expense of human life. First it’s “To save the planet, I won’t have kids”. Next is, “To save the planet, you shouldn’t have kids” Regardless if you have children or not, the chilling sentiment still exists. My fear is when, inevitably, there is social pressure, if not force, to adhere to similar doctrines on a larger scale.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - jungturk 6y ago
        It's not at the expense of human life if this person's local sacrifice improves global survivability of the species (assuming some people still decide to procreate). The parent envisions a world where the commons have been destroyed because everyone decided to pursue their self interest. I'm not sure that's cultish - seems like calculated pragmatism about a limited resource.
  - baron816 6y ago
    Option d) technology and good government policies enables a low/no carbon future.
    - loopz 6y ago
      Certainty e) incarnate as somebody else for many lifetimes to come Rationale: If you acknowledge you are alive and conscious reading this, why would this experience be something unique. Especially if everybody else reports the same? If not, why keep you alive?
    - hh3k0 6y ago
      It'd be nice if a no carbon future would be within reach but as far as I know, we do not have the technology to make this happen. Acting as if it's just a matter of time until we do... well, that is nothing short of a high-stakes gamble. Furthermore, we already have too much CO2 in the atmosphere -- even if we'd go no carbon _today_. We will need to actively remove it before we have passed too many ecological tipping points from which there may not be a return to the status quo.
      - tarboreus 6y ago
        We do have the technology. It's called nuclear energy.
        maheart 6y ago
        That's only part of the solution. Energy generation makes up ~25% of emissions, agriculture, manufacturing, transport, etc. make up the other 75%. All of these will increase as the 3rd world industrialises.
        hh3k0 6y ago
        > We do have the technology. It's called nuclear energy. No, we do not. Nuclear energy is by no means emission-free. > There is no such thing as a zero- or close-to-zero emission nuclear power plant. Even existing plants emit due to the continuous mining and refining of uranium needed for the plant. Emissions from new nuclear are 78 to 178 g-CO2/kWh, not close to 0. -- Mark Z. Jacobson, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University https://www.leonardodicaprio.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-is-not-the-answer-to-solve-climate-change/ https://www.leonardodicaprio.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-e...
  - rbecker 6y ago
    d) Limit immigration, thus reducing the population (and, according to some, economic growth) of the globally wealthy, that are almost without exception at sub-replacement fertility. No eugenics required.
    - bobthepanda 6y ago
      Most of the nightmarish consumption growth is not from immigration but from formerly developing countries achieving lifestyles and consumption habits similar to developed ones. 3 billion Chinese, Indians, etc. are more than happy to consume large amounts of meat, dairy and drive cars to their AC-controlled homes and jobs without immigrating.
  - webmaven 6y ago
    > The point is that there's no future where everyone consumes as much as today's average American. You either: > a) reduce the consumption of the globally wealthy (this includes most Americans) > b) keep the globally impoverished poor to keep their consumption low > c) add in some eugenics and stop the poor people from having more kids with the promise that one day you'll let them consume the same way you already do I think there is a plausible scenario where wealth becomes even more concentrated such that most Americans join the globally poor (this reduces the number of globally wealthy without reducing their consumption, after which you can assume scenario B). This is more or less the setup for the one-season TV series "Incorporated".
- JackFr 6y ago
  Overpopulation is not an issue. In practice, the most effective route to limiting population growth has been shown to be making people rich.
  - when_creaks 6y ago
    +1 As societies become more wealthy fertility rate tends to drop below replacement levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility Quote: "The higher the degree of education and GDP per capita of a human population, subpopulation or social stratum, the fewer children are born in any industrialized country"
  - bloak 6y ago
    I think it's education and urbanisation that most directly reduce the population growth. Those are linked to people getting richer.
- rbecker 6y ago
  High-impact wealthy people have also already been limiting their consumption via sub-replacement fertility for at least the last half-century. The only population growth in those countries is from immigration. It's puzzling how the article can claim that consumption at the rate of wealthy nations is unsustainable, even with their relatively small populations, then propose as the solution to raise a far larger number of people to the same levels of affluence and consumption.
- tuatoru 6y ago
  > why can we not also address overpopulation at the same time? We don't need to. Overpopulation has already been addressed. Look at the CIA's World Factbook list of countries by total fertility rate. Most countries are below replacement fertility; most of the rest are rapidly approaching that state. There is only one region of concern, sub-Saharan Africa, and even there total fertility rate is falling quite quickly. World population is pretty much only growing because of increasing lifespans: it's just momentum. Sometime between 2045 and 2080, momentum will work towards decreasing populations without any policy effort. Global population momentum is pretty hard to stop, so there's a much bigger payoff for much less effort if we focus on the wealthiest 500 million people in the world.
  - jl6 6y ago
    But the decline in global fertility rates is driven by improving women’s education, access to contraception, improving infant healthcare, and economic opportunity for the developing world - all things which population campaigners have been pushing for decades. To declare it solved feels like saying we don’t need the Clean Air Act because the air is now clean, when it’s the Clean Air Act which is responsible for that! Yes, there are encouraging signs that the world population is going to level out, but let’s not take our foot off the gas on all the measures that got us here just yet?

48 points by makerofspoons 6y ago

A quote: > 69 days to save the earth: ... hovering over all of these is whether the US will play its role in helping take collective responsibility for the future of the planet. Looks like a scenario for a movie with Bruce Willis.

jl6 6y ago

But although population growth in low-impact poorer nations has a small impact today, those peoples will one day (hopefully) be wealthy and high-impact, and at that point we’ll surely wish there weren’t so many. High-impact wealthy people definitely need to ratchet down their consumption, but why can we not also address overpopulation at the same time?

bdjsjsbdb 6y ago
The point is that there's no future where everyone consumes as much as today's average American. You either: a) reduce the consumption of the globally wealthy (this includes most Americans) b) keep the globally impoverished poor to keep their consumption low c) add in some eugenics and stop the poor people from having more kids with the promise that one day you'll let them consume the same way you already do You're basically proposing 3, which is asking poor people to voluntarily not have kids so one day they can have what you already have by accident of birth
- dencodev 6y ago
  I'm an American and had a vasectomy and one of the bigger reasons was that I don't want have kids that continue to contribute to the destruction of our planet by just being regular Americans. I felt like it was the biggest single contribution I could make for environmentalism. I also ride an electric bike, live in the PNW where I use barely any heat or AC, limit meat and dairy intake, and generally just don't buy stuff unless really needed.
  - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
    > I don't want have kids that continue to contribute to the destruction of our planet by just being regular Americans. ... so that the planet is preserved for the descendants of less environmentally responsible human beings?
    - dencodev 6y ago
      Yes. Just because someone is irresponsible and votes for governments that actively work to let these awful things happen doesn't mean they deserve to die from the effects of climate change.
      - dencodev 6y ago
        HN downvotes the weirdest things.
  - spacephysics 6y ago
    And here is where environmentalism becomes anti-human, and frankly cult like. Nothing against vasectomies, I’ll probably get one once I have a few kids. But putting the environment before the propagation of our species is unique to us, and I think a sinister thought pattern. Oh well, if enough extreme environmentalists share the same thought, then there will be no more extreme environmentalists. I’m all for doing our part to reduce greenhouse gases, and pollution. But not at the expense of human life. First it’s “To save the planet, I won’t have kids”. Next is, “To save the planet, you shouldn’t have kids” Regardless if you have children or not, the chilling sentiment still exists. My fear is when, inevitably, there is social pressure, if not force, to adhere to similar doctrines on a larger scale.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - jungturk 6y ago
      It's not at the expense of human life if this person's local sacrifice improves global survivability of the species (assuming some people still decide to procreate). The parent envisions a world where the commons have been destroyed because everyone decided to pursue their self interest. I'm not sure that's cultish - seems like calculated pragmatism about a limited resource.
- baron816 6y ago
  Option d) technology and good government policies enables a low/no carbon future.
  - loopz 6y ago
    Certainty e) incarnate as somebody else for many lifetimes to come Rationale: If you acknowledge you are alive and conscious reading this, why would this experience be something unique. Especially if everybody else reports the same? If not, why keep you alive?
  - hh3k0 6y ago
    It'd be nice if a no carbon future would be within reach but as far as I know, we do not have the technology to make this happen. Acting as if it's just a matter of time until we do... well, that is nothing short of a high-stakes gamble. Furthermore, we already have too much CO2 in the atmosphere -- even if we'd go no carbon _today_. We will need to actively remove it before we have passed too many ecological tipping points from which there may not be a return to the status quo.
    - tarboreus 6y ago
      We do have the technology. It's called nuclear energy.
      - maheart 6y ago
        That's only part of the solution. Energy generation makes up ~25% of emissions, agriculture, manufacturing, transport, etc. make up the other 75%. All of these will increase as the 3rd world industrialises.
      - hh3k0 6y ago
        > We do have the technology. It's called nuclear energy. No, we do not. Nuclear energy is by no means emission-free. > There is no such thing as a zero- or close-to-zero emission nuclear power plant. Even existing plants emit due to the continuous mining and refining of uranium needed for the plant. Emissions from new nuclear are 78 to 178 g-CO2/kWh, not close to 0. -- Mark Z. Jacobson, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University https://www.leonardodicaprio.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-is-not-the-answer-to-solve-climate-change/ https://www.leonardodicaprio.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-e...
- rbecker 6y ago
  d) Limit immigration, thus reducing the population (and, according to some, economic growth) of the globally wealthy, that are almost without exception at sub-replacement fertility. No eugenics required.
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    Most of the nightmarish consumption growth is not from immigration but from formerly developing countries achieving lifestyles and consumption habits similar to developed ones. 3 billion Chinese, Indians, etc. are more than happy to consume large amounts of meat, dairy and drive cars to their AC-controlled homes and jobs without immigrating.
- webmaven 6y ago
  > The point is that there's no future where everyone consumes as much as today's average American. You either: > a) reduce the consumption of the globally wealthy (this includes most Americans) > b) keep the globally impoverished poor to keep their consumption low > c) add in some eugenics and stop the poor people from having more kids with the promise that one day you'll let them consume the same way you already do I think there is a plausible scenario where wealth becomes even more concentrated such that most Americans join the globally poor (this reduces the number of globally wealthy without reducing their consumption, after which you can assume scenario B). This is more or less the setup for the one-season TV series "Incorporated".
JackFr 6y ago
Overpopulation is not an issue. In practice, the most effective route to limiting population growth has been shown to be making people rich.
- when_creaks 6y ago
  +1 As societies become more wealthy fertility rate tends to drop below replacement levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility Quote: "The higher the degree of education and GDP per capita of a human population, subpopulation or social stratum, the fewer children are born in any industrialized country"
- bloak 6y ago
  I think it's education and urbanisation that most directly reduce the population growth. Those are linked to people getting richer.
rbecker 6y ago
High-impact wealthy people have also already been limiting their consumption via sub-replacement fertility for at least the last half-century. The only population growth in those countries is from immigration. It's puzzling how the article can claim that consumption at the rate of wealthy nations is unsustainable, even with their relatively small populations, then propose as the solution to raise a far larger number of people to the same levels of affluence and consumption.
tuatoru 6y ago
> why can we not also address overpopulation at the same time? We don't need to. Overpopulation has already been addressed. Look at the CIA's World Factbook list of countries by total fertility rate. Most countries are below replacement fertility; most of the rest are rapidly approaching that state. There is only one region of concern, sub-Saharan Africa, and even there total fertility rate is falling quite quickly. World population is pretty much only growing because of increasing lifespans: it's just momentum. Sometime between 2045 and 2080, momentum will work towards decreasing populations without any policy effort. Global population momentum is pretty hard to stop, so there's a much bigger payoff for much less effort if we focus on the wealthiest 500 million people in the world.
- jl6 6y ago
  But the decline in global fertility rates is driven by improving women’s education, access to contraception, improving infant healthcare, and economic opportunity for the developing world - all things which population campaigners have been pushing for decades. To declare it solved feels like saying we don’t need the Clean Air Act because the air is now clean, when it’s the Clean Air Act which is responsible for that! Yes, there are encouraging signs that the world population is going to level out, but let’s not take our foot off the gas on all the measures that got us here just yet?