3 ms·
I am in agreement with this position. Fortunately, for humans, it seems a higher quality of life leads to negative population growth (hopefully it happens fast
by hermannj314 5y ago
I am in agreement with this position. Fortunately, for humans, it seems a higher quality of life leads to negative population growth (hopefully it happens fast enough).
If everyone wants to live and consume like a 21st century American, we need to make sure the world only has around 2 billion people (this is based on a fact I read that we need the resources of 4 Earths to sustain American style consumerism globally).
As our quality of life goes up more, the number of humans Earth can support gets smaller. Depending on the target global average lifestyle, we probably already have too many people by a significant amount.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- rocknor 5y agoAll of this doesn't take into account technological advancement.
- hermannj314 5y agoI see your point. If we make technological improvements that reduce consumption, Earth can sustain more people. If those improvements increase consumption we sustain fewer. As I said increasing technology and life comforts genrally reduce population growth, let's hope for other technology miracles as well. This is a reasonable position. I spent the weekend in the Pennsylvania wilderness in an area that in the mid-1800s had been stripped bare by logging and was now a preserved and expansive wilderness. Humanity can and will adapt. Believing so helps me sleep at night.
- rocknor 5y agoI'm hopeful as well. I believe that humanity will definitely suffer from climate change to an extent, at least in this century, but eventually will figure out sustainable energy and thus not go extinct.