4 ms·

I'm assuming you hold these views for environmental reasons? I don't think the quantity of human beings is a significant factor in the deterioration of our envi

by Taek 6y ago

I'm assuming you hold these views for environmental reasons? I don't think the quantity of human beings is a significant factor in the deterioration of our environment. We have plenty of stainable ways to provide for ten billion plus humans. Most of the damage comes from unsustainable production. The amount of production happening per capita is increasing worldwide, and if we want to save the environment we have to enforce that production is sustainable.

redisman 6y ago
The number of humans is almost certainly one of the main multipliers. If you halve the number of people I'm pretty sure you'd close to halve emissions and pollution and habitat loss. I think "less people" is easier to achieve than some global political consensus and the fall of capitalism. And no I don't think "sustainable" and capitalism anywhere near it's current form fit in the same world. Protecting nature is not a market force so you need some other mechanism for that.
- Taek 6y ago
  A quick google search suggests we need to cut emissions by 80%. For population control to be a meaningful play, we're talking about cutting the entire world down under 2 billion people. And this is assuming people on average are responsible for equal amounts of emissions. But the rich are overwhelmingly bigger contributors on a per capita basis, and as automation continues it gets easier and easier for a small number of people to be responsible for a large amount of consumption.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    I think you're missing the far more obvious disaster scenario that the population keeps doubling. How are you going to reduce emissions by 80% if we have 15 billion people?
  - toyg 6y ago
    It's not so much about energy as it is about growing food and consuming soil. While most of the world is still living in abject poverty, we are already over-exploiting some resources (excessive fishing and growing, for example), which is not sustainable. By the time everyone gets to achieve a "western" lifestyle, unless we reduce fertility rates, it's unlikely the Earth will be able to sustain us. Some of this process seems to be somewhat natural, since fertility has historically fallen in line with economic and social development, but we still need to ensure this remains true. South America, Africa and Asia are slowly "coming online" and if we're not careful we'll be fighting over scarce resources before everyone has had a chance to experience wealth.
rob74 6y ago
I very much doubt that "we" have a way to provide the current "western" lifestyle to ten billion humans in a sustainable way. Because that's the "ideal" most humans on this planet are striving for...
- ghgdynb1 6y ago
  The “way” is technology. Malthus famously saw exponential population growth outstripping linear growth in food production. Earth had an estimated carrying capacity of about two billion people as I recall, and it turns out that their estimates were pretty good by and large. But, they didn’t account for technological takeoff, which allowed us to escape that linear production growth. Nearly half the nitrogen in your body came from the Haber–Bosch process.
fsflover 6y ago
Yes, it is a significant factor. In fact, the most significant one: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/....
toyg 6y ago
> I don't think the quantity of human beings is a significant factor in the deterioration of our environment. It definitely is. It drives demands for food, housing, and industrial development, which in turn put massive pressure on the environment. Displacement of bats because of human expansion, for example, is likely a factor in the appearance of covid19. The western way of life is destructive over the environment and will not scale easily if we are not careful.
Reason077 6y ago
> "I don't think the quantity of human beings is a significant factor in the deterioration of our environment. We have plenty of stainable ways to provide for ten billion plus humans." We certainly can (and must) do much, much better at operating sustainable economies and reducing our per-capita environmental footprint. But it is unhelpful that the global population is still growing rapidly, consuming ever more land and resources. Thankfully, as economies develop and standards of living increase, birth rates tend to decline. Current trends suggest the rate of population growth is slowing, and we will eventually reach a stable population some time between 2050 and 2100. I'm certainly not suggesting we should be telling people they can't have children, but anything we can do to encourage sustainable family sizes and bring forward the date when we reach stability is generally a good thing.

by Taek 6y ago

redisman 6y ago

The number of humans is almost certainly one of the main multipliers. If you halve the number of people I'm pretty sure you'd close to halve emissions and pollution and habitat loss. I think "less people" is easier to achieve than some global political consensus and the fall of capitalism. And no I don't think "sustainable" and capitalism anywhere near it's current form fit in the same world. Protecting nature is not a market force so you need some other mechanism for that.

Taek 6y ago
A quick google search suggests we need to cut emissions by 80%. For population control to be a meaningful play, we're talking about cutting the entire world down under 2 billion people. And this is assuming people on average are responsible for equal amounts of emissions. But the rich are overwhelmingly bigger contributors on a per capita basis, and as automation continues it gets easier and easier for a small number of people to be responsible for a large amount of consumption.
- imtringued 6y ago
  I think you're missing the far more obvious disaster scenario that the population keeps doubling. How are you going to reduce emissions by 80% if we have 15 billion people?
- toyg 6y ago
  It's not so much about energy as it is about growing food and consuming soil. While most of the world is still living in abject poverty, we are already over-exploiting some resources (excessive fishing and growing, for example), which is not sustainable. By the time everyone gets to achieve a "western" lifestyle, unless we reduce fertility rates, it's unlikely the Earth will be able to sustain us. Some of this process seems to be somewhat natural, since fertility has historically fallen in line with economic and social development, but we still need to ensure this remains true. South America, Africa and Asia are slowly "coming online" and if we're not careful we'll be fighting over scarce resources before everyone has had a chance to experience wealth.

rob74 6y ago

I very much doubt that "we" have a way to provide the current "western" lifestyle to ten billion humans in a sustainable way. Because that's the "ideal" most humans on this planet are striving for...

ghgdynb1 6y ago
The “way” is technology. Malthus famously saw exponential population growth outstripping linear growth in food production. Earth had an estimated carrying capacity of about two billion people as I recall, and it turns out that their estimates were pretty good by and large. But, they didn’t account for technological takeoff, which allowed us to escape that linear production growth. Nearly half the nitrogen in your body came from the Haber–Bosch process.

fsflover 6y ago

Yes, it is a significant factor. In fact, the most significant one: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/....

toyg 6y ago

> I don't think the quantity of human beings is a significant factor in the deterioration of our environment. It definitely is. It drives demands for food, housing, and industrial development, which in turn put massive pressure on the environment. Displacement of bats because of human expansion, for example, is likely a factor in the appearance of covid19. The western way of life is destructive over the environment and will not scale easily if we are not careful.

Reason077 6y ago

> "I don't think the quantity of human beings is a significant factor in the deterioration of our environment. We have plenty of stainable ways to provide for ten billion plus humans." We certainly can (and must) do much, much better at operating sustainable economies and reducing our per-capita environmental footprint. But it is unhelpful that the global population is still growing rapidly, consuming ever more land and resources. Thankfully, as economies develop and standards of living increase, birth rates tend to decline. Current trends suggest the rate of population growth is slowing, and we will eventually reach a stable population some time between 2050 and 2100. I'm certainly not suggesting we should be telling people they can't have children, but anything we can do to encourage sustainable family sizes and bring forward the date when we reach stability is generally a good thing.