4 ms·

> India isn't the developed world. Yes, I'm aware, which is why I included that the developing world's birth rate is also dropping, although starting from a hi

by sxg 5y ago

> India isn't the developed world. Yes, I'm aware, which is why I included that the developing world's birth rate is also dropping, although starting from a higher baseline level. > When scaling up, everything destroys the environment. Yeah, I agree, but things don't tend to scale up linearly, and I think you're missing the cause/effect interplay between population growth and resource consumption. Yes, as populations grow they require more resources (as you point out), but limits on production of those same resources (eg food, energy) will in turn impose limits on population growth. Population growth isn't some uninhibited unstoppable force. Population shrinking forces also exist, which will likely make the net population rate of change hit an equilibrium.

slothtrop 5y ago
> limits on production of those same resources (eg food, energy) will in turn impose limits on population growth. Historically greater food and resource output could help you grow fast (particularly by intention), but for a long while now population growth is negatively correlated with production on the global scale. The 1st world is high production, the 3rd world is not, and all the while hunger and lack of infrastructure seems to be no deterrent to the fertility rate. Child mortality rate might also compel some to have more children. If one were interested in stops on population growth, access to contraceptives and eliminating poverty would probably be the most powerful way short of a State policy to punish excess births.
- sxg 5y ago
  I see what you're saying, namely that there's a disconnect between food/resource production and population growth in the 1st and 3rd worlds. But I would point out that there are many, many more factors involved beyond just food and other basic resources that influence population growth. Like you mentioned, child mortality rates are one, but cost of education and college are another. The Economist recently had an article about how many families don't have a 4th child because the majority of cars can only seat 2 adults and 3 kids. I still don't see overpopulation as a serious future issue because much of the world is showing the same steady decline in birth rates to near or below population replacement levels.
  - slothtrop 5y ago
    It is definitely leveling off. It's just that, without intervention, it will take a long time to do so, 100+ years. The question then is whether increased demands poses a threat in the interim - maybe not. Emissions rate could probably be cut drastically through innovation in the next decade, as climate change is concerned, though it's so far gone we might require geoengineering at this point. That research is still in it's infancy, and as it stands, the options are mediocre.

by sxg 5y ago

slothtrop 5y ago

> limits on production of those same resources (eg food, energy) will in turn impose limits on population growth. Historically greater food and resource output could help you grow fast (particularly by intention), but for a long while now population growth is negatively correlated with production on the global scale. The 1st world is high production, the 3rd world is not, and all the while hunger and lack of infrastructure seems to be no deterrent to the fertility rate. Child mortality rate might also compel some to have more children. If one were interested in stops on population growth, access to contraceptives and eliminating poverty would probably be the most powerful way short of a State policy to punish excess births.

sxg 5y ago
I see what you're saying, namely that there's a disconnect between food/resource production and population growth in the 1st and 3rd worlds. But I would point out that there are many, many more factors involved beyond just food and other basic resources that influence population growth. Like you mentioned, child mortality rates are one, but cost of education and college are another. The Economist recently had an article about how many families don't have a 4th child because the majority of cars can only seat 2 adults and 3 kids. I still don't see overpopulation as a serious future issue because much of the world is showing the same steady decline in birth rates to near or below population replacement levels.
- slothtrop 5y ago
  It is definitely leveling off. It's just that, without intervention, it will take a long time to do so, 100+ years. The question then is whether increased demands poses a threat in the interim - maybe not. Emissions rate could probably be cut drastically through innovation in the next decade, as climate change is concerned, though it's so far gone we might require geoengineering at this point. That research is still in it's infancy, and as it stands, the options are mediocre.