3 ms·

You make some interesting points, but I don't think you can get around the logic that more people on the planet has a significant contribution to global warming

by zizee 5y ago

You make some interesting points, but I don't think you can get around the logic that more people on the planet has a significant contribution to global warming (with all other things kept constant). If we if ignore population size/growth as a factor, we will ignore possible solutions related to that variable. Reducing the world's population doesn't have to some dystopian horror show, with forced sterilization and mass cullings. Perhaps the most cost efficient way to combat global warming is lifting the world's poorest out of poverty. It's been shown as populations become richer/educated their growth slows and shrink over time.

nickik 5y ago
Yes the world would be free of climate change if there were again only 100 million people. However that isn't a solution I would advocate. > Perhaps the most cost efficient way to combat global warming is lifting the world's poorest out of poverty. It's been shown as populations become richer/educated their growth slows and shrink over time. Exactly. And we do that by more technology development into superior technologies that don't suffer the inefficiencies of carbon sources. And we will get there faster with more people, more people working on these issues. Btw more population also usually results in more urbanization and more efficient energy use per person. I also believe that the effects are not gone be as bad as some people predict, as was the case with most of the 'this is gone kill us all predictions'. Slow adjustment over decades is gone mitigate most of the issues.
- zizee 5y ago
  > And we will get there faster with more people, more people working on these issues. I thought you were arguing against forcibly shrinking the population (which I don't think anyone was advocating btw), but are you actually arguing to grow the population as a way to improve things environmentally? Having more people in the world does not lead to "more people are working on these issues". Well, maybe it could, but it would be one of the least efficient (and most indirect) ways to make it happen. > Btw more population also usually results in more urbanization and more efficient energy use per person. Problem: We've got a problem with too many humans being ineffecient. Answer: increase the population to get more ubanization, which brings some efficiencies. I'll just ignore the decrease in quality of life for everyone, and just say that this doesn't seem like an elegant solution.

by zizee 5y ago

nickik 5y ago

Yes the world would be free of climate change if there were again only 100 million people. However that isn't a solution I would advocate. > Perhaps the most cost efficient way to combat global warming is lifting the world's poorest out of poverty. It's been shown as populations become richer/educated their growth slows and shrink over time. Exactly. And we do that by more technology development into superior technologies that don't suffer the inefficiencies of carbon sources. And we will get there faster with more people, more people working on these issues. Btw more population also usually results in more urbanization and more efficient energy use per person. I also believe that the effects are not gone be as bad as some people predict, as was the case with most of the 'this is gone kill us all predictions'. Slow adjustment over decades is gone mitigate most of the issues.

zizee 5y ago
> And we will get there faster with more people, more people working on these issues. I thought you were arguing against forcibly shrinking the population (which I don't think anyone was advocating btw), but are you actually arguing to grow the population as a way to improve things environmentally? Having more people in the world does not lead to "more people are working on these issues". Well, maybe it could, but it would be one of the least efficient (and most indirect) ways to make it happen. > Btw more population also usually results in more urbanization and more efficient energy use per person. Problem: We've got a problem with too many humans being ineffecient. Answer: increase the population to get more ubanization, which brings some efficiencies. I'll just ignore the decrease in quality of life for everyone, and just say that this doesn't seem like an elegant solution.