4 ms·

> Of course, that doesn't mean for a second that the solution to the world's problems somehow involves population control in developing countries. Why not? A l

> Of course, that doesn't mean for a second that the solution to the world's problems somehow involves population control in developing countries. Why not? A lot of people on the left are saying that having children is bad for the environment, why shouldn't this be true in poor countries?

bildung 6y ago
Because A doesn't automatically follow B. Fewer children is better for the environment; that doesn't mean one has to favor population control. It's easier, more democratic and probably at least as effective to enforce equality for women in education and economics, and the lower birthrates follow automatically.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  Population control doesn't have to mean forced mass sterilizations. If you educate people with at least the partial goal of them having fewer children, that is also population control. Not that there's anything particularly democratic about "enforcing equality" in foreign countries.
  - throwaway316943 6y ago
    How do you reverse it when it becomes a problem? If we’re taking the long view here, our future generations may be facing a world where there aren’t enough people. Or is that a problem that we’ll leave to them to figure out?
    - imtringued 6y ago
      >our future generations may be facing a world where there aren’t enough people That would be wonderful because it would mean that workers get fair wages. Lack of productivity can be compensated by automation. >How do you reverse it when it becomes a problem? That's biologically impossible. Even if you sterilize every human with a birth certificate on earth.
    - Grustaf 6y ago
      I’m not personally advocating for population control, just couldn’t understand why it would be completely off the table in poor countries.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
        I think the conversation is just scary for obvious reasons based on human historical tendencies. The topic is not exactly verbotten, but it is genuinely hard to argue for or against dispassionately. Part of the official reasoning is that young population is a poor's country resource. I personally take issue with nations seeing their population that way, but it is not unusual.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    I honestly am not sure education is the answer. Both me and my wife are educated. There are arguments against us having children from genetic standpoint and she still wanted to roll the dice. It may work in aggregate, but natural pull is very strong.
1024768 6y ago
Actually that wouldn't be a very efficient solution because pollution is not evenly divided across the world's population. See this map [1] showing CO2 emissions per capita, or this diagram [2] showing CO2 emissions per fertility. As this article [3] (unfortunately not in English) aptly puts it: "Air travels represents around 5% of the emissions of humanity [4], but 90% of humans have never taken a plane." (the 90% figure is arguably difficult to assess [5]. It comes from an article in French behind a paywall, but other sources [6] show similar numbers). Finally, CO2 is of course not the only source of pollution. But this map [7] showing meat supply per person shows a similar direction. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/CO2_emissions_per_capita%2C_2017_%28Our_World_in_Data%29.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/CO2_emis... [2] https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$state$time$value=2014;&marker$axis_x$which=children_per_woman_total_fertility&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin:1.12&zoomedMax:7.5&scaleType=linear&spaceRef:null;&axis_y$which=co2_emissions_tonnes_per_person&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin:0&zoomedMax:45&spaceRef:null;&size$which=yearly_co2_emissions_1000_tonnes&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&spaceRef:null;;;&ui$chart$decorations$enabled:false;;;&chart-type=bubbles https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$state$time$value=2014;&mar... [3] https://medium.com/enquetes-ecosophiques/d%C3%A9mographie-et-climat-5a6ef5be37ed https://medium.com/enquetes-ecosophiques/d%C3%A9mographie-et... [4] https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/30987495.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/30987495.pdf [5] https://www.quora.com/What-percent-of-the-worlds-population-will-fly-in-an-airplane-in-their-lives https://www.quora.com/What-percent-of-the-worlds-population-... [6] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/17/people-cause-global-aviation-emissions-study-covid-19 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/17/people-caus... [7] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Meat_supply_per_person%2C_OWID.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Meat_sup...
pessimizer 6y ago
Because your children will pollute and consume an order of magnitude more than poor children. If you're American, your children will pollute and consume twice as much as even Europeans, IIRC. Of course, this is the average American, which is a deceptive number when talking about countries with high levels of wealth inequality.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  Please don’t assume I’m American; anything but that. I’m not an advocate for population control, but if I were I wouldn’t exclude poor countries from my scope. Many poor countries are “developing” and it seems more reasonable to ask people that were planning to have 8 children to instead have 4 rather than targeting people that were aiming for one or two. Especially when the 8 kid family to be is already poor.
- vinay427 6y ago
  The "twice as much as even Europeans" is even more deceptive as there's a difference of at least a factor of 2 between countries in Europe. For instance, Switzerland's consumption of carbon per capita is almost 3 times that of Bulgaria or Portugal, while Luxembourg is apparently over twice as high as the US (not sure why?). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita#Consumption-based_emissions:_annual_carbon_dioxide_emissions_in_tons_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

bildung 6y ago

Because A doesn't automatically follow B. Fewer children is better for the environment; that doesn't mean one has to favor population control. It's easier, more democratic and probably at least as effective to enforce equality for women in education and economics, and the lower birthrates follow automatically.

Grustaf 6y ago
Population control doesn't have to mean forced mass sterilizations. If you educate people with at least the partial goal of them having fewer children, that is also population control. Not that there's anything particularly democratic about "enforcing equality" in foreign countries.
- throwaway316943 6y ago
  How do you reverse it when it becomes a problem? If we’re taking the long view here, our future generations may be facing a world where there aren’t enough people. Or is that a problem that we’ll leave to them to figure out?
  - imtringued 6y ago
    >our future generations may be facing a world where there aren’t enough people That would be wonderful because it would mean that workers get fair wages. Lack of productivity can be compensated by automation. >How do you reverse it when it becomes a problem? That's biologically impossible. Even if you sterilize every human with a birth certificate on earth.
  - Grustaf 6y ago
    I’m not personally advocating for population control, just couldn’t understand why it would be completely off the table in poor countries.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      I think the conversation is just scary for obvious reasons based on human historical tendencies. The topic is not exactly verbotten, but it is genuinely hard to argue for or against dispassionately. Part of the official reasoning is that young population is a poor's country resource. I personally take issue with nations seeing their population that way, but it is not unusual.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  I honestly am not sure education is the answer. Both me and my wife are educated. There are arguments against us having children from genetic standpoint and she still wanted to roll the dice. It may work in aggregate, but natural pull is very strong.

1024768 6y ago

Actually that wouldn't be a very efficient solution because pollution is not evenly divided across the world's population. See this map [1] showing CO2 emissions per capita, or this diagram [2] showing CO2 emissions per fertility. As this article [3] (unfortunately not in English) aptly puts it: "Air travels represents around 5% of the emissions of humanity [4], but 90% of humans have never taken a plane." (the 90% figure is arguably difficult to assess [5]. It comes from an article in French behind a paywall, but other sources [6] show similar numbers). Finally, CO2 is of course not the only source of pollution. But this map [7] showing meat supply per person shows a similar direction. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/CO2_emissions_per_capita%2C_2017_%28Our_World_in_Data%29.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/CO2_emis... [2] https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$state$time$value=2014;&marker$axis_x$which=children_per_woman_total_fertility&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin:1.12&zoomedMax:7.5&scaleType=linear&spaceRef:null;&axis_y$which=co2_emissions_tonnes_per_person&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin:0&zoomedMax:45&spaceRef:null;&size$which=yearly_co2_emissions_1000_tonnes&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&spaceRef:null;;;&ui$chart$decorations$enabled:false;;;&chart-type=bubbles https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$state$time$value=2014;&mar... [3] https://medium.com/enquetes-ecosophiques/d%C3%A9mographie-et-climat-5a6ef5be37ed https://medium.com/enquetes-ecosophiques/d%C3%A9mographie-et... [4] https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/30987495.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/30987495.pdf [5] https://www.quora.com/What-percent-of-the-worlds-population-will-fly-in-an-airplane-in-their-lives https://www.quora.com/What-percent-of-the-worlds-population-... [6] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/17/people-cause-global-aviation-emissions-study-covid-19 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/17/people-caus... [7] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Meat_supply_per_person%2C_OWID.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Meat_sup...

pessimizer 6y ago

Because your children will pollute and consume an order of magnitude more than poor children. If you're American, your children will pollute and consume twice as much as even Europeans, IIRC. Of course, this is the average American, which is a deceptive number when talking about countries with high levels of wealth inequality.

Grustaf 6y ago
Please don’t assume I’m American; anything but that. I’m not an advocate for population control, but if I were I wouldn’t exclude poor countries from my scope. Many poor countries are “developing” and it seems more reasonable to ask people that were planning to have 8 children to instead have 4 rather than targeting people that were aiming for one or two. Especially when the 8 kid family to be is already poor.
vinay427 6y ago
The "twice as much as even Europeans" is even more deceptive as there's a difference of at least a factor of 2 between countries in Europe. For instance, Switzerland's consumption of carbon per capita is almost 3 times that of Bulgaria or Portugal, while Luxembourg is apparently over twice as high as the US (not sure why?). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita#Consumption-based_emissions:_annual_carbon_dioxide_emissions_in_tons_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...