5 ms·

This is a good thing. The carrying capacity of the planet is finite, and our large global population is largely responsible for the destruction of the environme

This is a good thing. The carrying capacity of the planet is finite, and our large global population is largely responsible for the destruction of the environment and climate change. Further, the high standard of living of Americans places a significant burden on the resources used to sustain this lifestyle. 300k fewer Americans will have a much greater impact on the environment than 300k fewer people of any other country. There's also the fact that the global population has to decrease at some point, à la Japan.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Many places have less than replacement now. Spain is very much less. Nearly every country on earth is headed asymptotically toward that. We've just taken a jump ahead by several years on that path.
chriskanan 6y ago
I highly recommend David Attenborough's 2020 Netflix documentary "A Life on Our Planet." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough:_A_Life_on_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough:_A_Life_on_... https://www.netflix.com/title/80216393 https://www.netflix.com/title/80216393 It is his "witness statement" on how he has personally observed enormous environmental damage over his ~70 year career documenting wildlife throughout the world. He argues that the solution is to reduce our population growth worldwide.
- kmlx 6y ago
  on the other hand our planet has seen 5 mass extinction events. at the same time, 56 millions years ago the planet was extremely hot: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hotte... and, to top it off, all we're doing is prolonging the inevitable warming of the planet. things aren't so clear as that documentary makes it unfortunately.
  - leesalminen 6y ago
    > things aren't so clear as that documentary makes it unfortunately. I’ve been wondering lately what happened to the documentary genre. When was the turning point where they started becoming political in nature, driving an ideology based off FUD and pseudo-science? Or have they always been this way and I’m just realizing it now?
    - adrianN 6y ago
      I suppose the turning point was when we stopped living in a shared reality where scientific consensus was worth something.
    - ben_w 6y ago
      I grew up with “documentaries” about aliens and ghosts, so I think the problem has been here for ages.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    There were no humans 56 millions years ago. I'd like the planet to remain in a state that is good for humans for at least a few more millennia.
    - kmlx 6y ago
      “a few more millennia” is basically nothing in terms of the planet’s history.
      - adrianN 6y ago
        The entirety of human civilization is basically nothing in terms of the planet's history. That doesn't make it less important to me though.
        kmlx 6y ago
        to me it’s an important aspect. try as we might, we’ll still be subject to planetary forces outside of our control. the planet is warming. we can delay it for a bit, but the planet will continue to warm no matter what we do. of course we should manage our impact on the planet. but this will represent just a small delay in the grand scheme of things. a few generations, maybe even a few thousand years as you’ve put it. but a multi generational effort to tackle either moving to a different planet or something like living underground will be needed. unfortunately our extremely limited existence will make these efforts extremely hard to tackle.
- neogodless 6y ago
  It's really odd to me. 200 years ago, the population was about one billion. Now it approaches eight billion. If the trend really is lower over the next 100 years and it drops... don't we think it would eventually reverse again? Why do we want the population to be stable or always growing? Why would it be bad for it to be going down for a while?
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    It would not reverse if woman have universal access to contraceptives and are empowered and educated. It’s a one way ratchet. https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#what-explains-the-change-in-the-number-of-children-women-have https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#what-explains-the-...
    - neogodless 6y ago
      That's an assumption though, based on the current conditions and population. You can't extrapolate that same assumption to a future modernized world that has returned to one or two billion humans. Perhaps in that world, women happily choose to have more children than they are having now, for a variety of unforeseen reasons. Perhaps the world is just so great for everyone that women choose to bring additional children into the world, knowing just how much joy that children will experience. Perhaps children become a new popular hobby or some entertainment scheme we would find abhorrent in today's world. I don't believe there's anyway to know today that it's a one way ratchet forever.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    Many parts of our economy assume perpetual growth. The easiest way to ensure growth is to increase the number of humans. Look at countries with shrinking birth rates for a glimpse of the problems an aging population can cause.
    - jfk13 6y ago
      Perpetual growth based on an ever-increasing population is a recipe for eventual disaster. The earth's resources are not infinite. We may not be able to say precisely what its carrying capacity for humans is (and the answer would depend to some extent on the conditions in which the humans are prepared to live), but I am entirely confident that there is a limit.
rocgf 6y ago
It is very hard to understand why your comment was downvoted this badly. I thought everyone understands that the planet is overpopulated as it is and that bringing as many children into the world as possible is not a net positive.
- kmlx 6y ago
  it's not overpopulated. this is a myth that has been going on since the 1970s: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/12/16766872/overpopulation-exaggerated-concern-climate-change-world-population https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/12/16766872/overpop...
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    700 million people in the world face food scarcity at any one time. The world is overpopulated and its resources strained by the existing 7.4 billion humans (CO2 budget, natural resources reserves, etc).
    - leesalminen 6y ago
      It seems like that’s artificially constrained food supply though. There’s plenty of land to grow crops on the planet. It’s not like there’s not enough seeds or dirt to grow food.
    - kmlx 6y ago
      those are two unrelated ideas. again, overpopulation is a myth. a convenient and lazy one. but still a myth. there are too many resources on the web explaining this.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - jnwatson 6y ago
      Practically speaking, we make enough food for all the humans on this planet, and we'll likely be able to until at least 10 billion people exist. The reason that folks face food scarcity is a distribution problem, not a production problem. We don't do a good job at making sure people don't go hungry, even in the US.
Peepootoler 6y ago
It's a good thing, but I expect politicians to just use this as another excuse for more mass immigration. They've been using this narrative for decades now after all.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

Many places have less than replacement now. Spain is very much less. Nearly every country on earth is headed asymptotically toward that. We've just taken a jump ahead by several years on that path.

chriskanan 6y ago

I highly recommend David Attenborough's 2020 Netflix documentary "A Life on Our Planet." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough:_A_Life_on_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough:_A_Life_on_... https://www.netflix.com/title/80216393 https://www.netflix.com/title/80216393 It is his "witness statement" on how he has personally observed enormous environmental damage over his ~70 year career documenting wildlife throughout the world. He argues that the solution is to reduce our population growth worldwide.

kmlx 6y ago
on the other hand our planet has seen 5 mass extinction events. at the same time, 56 millions years ago the planet was extremely hot: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hotte... and, to top it off, all we're doing is prolonging the inevitable warming of the planet. things aren't so clear as that documentary makes it unfortunately.
- leesalminen 6y ago
  > things aren't so clear as that documentary makes it unfortunately. I’ve been wondering lately what happened to the documentary genre. When was the turning point where they started becoming political in nature, driving an ideology based off FUD and pseudo-science? Or have they always been this way and I’m just realizing it now?
  - adrianN 6y ago
    I suppose the turning point was when we stopped living in a shared reality where scientific consensus was worth something.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    I grew up with “documentaries” about aliens and ghosts, so I think the problem has been here for ages.
- adrianN 6y ago
  There were no humans 56 millions years ago. I'd like the planet to remain in a state that is good for humans for at least a few more millennia.
  - kmlx 6y ago
    “a few more millennia” is basically nothing in terms of the planet’s history.
    - adrianN 6y ago
      The entirety of human civilization is basically nothing in terms of the planet's history. That doesn't make it less important to me though.
      - kmlx 6y ago
        to me it’s an important aspect. try as we might, we’ll still be subject to planetary forces outside of our control. the planet is warming. we can delay it for a bit, but the planet will continue to warm no matter what we do. of course we should manage our impact on the planet. but this will represent just a small delay in the grand scheme of things. a few generations, maybe even a few thousand years as you’ve put it. but a multi generational effort to tackle either moving to a different planet or something like living underground will be needed. unfortunately our extremely limited existence will make these efforts extremely hard to tackle.
neogodless 6y ago
It's really odd to me. 200 years ago, the population was about one billion. Now it approaches eight billion. If the trend really is lower over the next 100 years and it drops... don't we think it would eventually reverse again? Why do we want the population to be stable or always growing? Why would it be bad for it to be going down for a while?
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  It would not reverse if woman have universal access to contraceptives and are empowered and educated. It’s a one way ratchet. https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#what-explains-the-change-in-the-number-of-children-women-have https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#what-explains-the-...
  - neogodless 6y ago
    That's an assumption though, based on the current conditions and population. You can't extrapolate that same assumption to a future modernized world that has returned to one or two billion humans. Perhaps in that world, women happily choose to have more children than they are having now, for a variety of unforeseen reasons. Perhaps the world is just so great for everyone that women choose to bring additional children into the world, knowing just how much joy that children will experience. Perhaps children become a new popular hobby or some entertainment scheme we would find abhorrent in today's world. I don't believe there's anyway to know today that it's a one way ratchet forever.
- adrianN 6y ago
  Many parts of our economy assume perpetual growth. The easiest way to ensure growth is to increase the number of humans. Look at countries with shrinking birth rates for a glimpse of the problems an aging population can cause.
  - jfk13 6y ago
    Perpetual growth based on an ever-increasing population is a recipe for eventual disaster. The earth's resources are not infinite. We may not be able to say precisely what its carrying capacity for humans is (and the answer would depend to some extent on the conditions in which the humans are prepared to live), but I am entirely confident that there is a limit.

rocgf 6y ago

It is very hard to understand why your comment was downvoted this badly. I thought everyone understands that the planet is overpopulated as it is and that bringing as many children into the world as possible is not a net positive.

kmlx 6y ago
it's not overpopulated. this is a myth that has been going on since the 1970s: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/12/16766872/overpopulation-exaggerated-concern-climate-change-world-population https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/12/16766872/overpop...
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  700 million people in the world face food scarcity at any one time. The world is overpopulated and its resources strained by the existing 7.4 billion humans (CO2 budget, natural resources reserves, etc).
  - leesalminen 6y ago
    It seems like that’s artificially constrained food supply though. There’s plenty of land to grow crops on the planet. It’s not like there’s not enough seeds or dirt to grow food.
  - kmlx 6y ago
    those are two unrelated ideas. again, overpopulation is a myth. a convenient and lazy one. but still a myth. there are too many resources on the web explaining this.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - jnwatson 6y ago
    Practically speaking, we make enough food for all the humans on this planet, and we'll likely be able to until at least 10 billion people exist. The reason that folks face food scarcity is a distribution problem, not a production problem. We don't do a good job at making sure people don't go hungry, even in the US.

Peepootoler 6y ago

It's a good thing, but I expect politicians to just use this as another excuse for more mass immigration. They've been using this narrative for decades now after all.