3 ms·
You can also work on reducing demand. Reducing population growth to negative numbers will bring benefits across the economy and ecology of the planet.
by manicdee 6y ago
You can also work on reducing demand. Reducing population growth to negative numbers will bring benefits across the economy and ecology of the planet.
- refurb 6y agoThis is why we can’t have nice things.
- manicdee 6y agoNo. Why we can’t have nice things is the selfishness of the people who worship “the economy” at the cost of human lives. Why we can’t have nice things is the fascination with enabling rich people to get richer directly at the expense of the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
- arcticbull 6y agoThing is we already have this. The birth rate in the US is 1.73 children per woman, and the equilibrium rate is 2.1. As development increases, the birth rate drops further. Generally speaking if you want to reduce population, push for development. Schools, healthcare, economic empowerment, the works. It's the best contraceptive. That's fine in the macro, but the micro problem remains people will still want to live more in nice places than crap places. The Bay Area happens to be really, really nice - from a climate perspective that is.
- worik 6y agoNot necessarily benefit the economy. People are a resource. It is all about balance, in a turbulent world
- manicdee 6y agoThe economy exists as a side effect of getting people the things they need to live fulfilling lives. Serving the economy is literally putting the cart before the horse. I need to eat and poop. I don’t measure my value as a person by how much I poop. When people value the metric of pooping over the quality of life of the pooper, you create a broken society. So too, valuing the movement of money over what the money is used for distorts our society. More people inflates GDP. GDP is not a measure of anything worthwhile. The economy is not the thing we need to be nurturing — it is a side effect.