3 ms·

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 pollu

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.

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.