3 ms·
> few talk about population and consumption as the main driver for that. This seems like the elephant in the room to me. It's almost never discussed, at least
by glial 5y ago
> few talk about population and consumption as the main driver for that.
This seems like the elephant in the room to me. It's almost never discussed, at least in the US, but as you say, it's the driver for global warming, ecological devastation, and resource constraints of all kinds. Us humans love to talk about our ability to adapt to new environments, but our lack of willingness to plan long-term is highlighting that our adaptability is not universal.
Edit: in before 'but what about the economic growth?': that's the point. Growth is not sustainable, at least when growth is related to resource utilization.
- inkblotuniverse 5y agoTechnological improvement is growth. That isn't intrinsically tied to increasing resource utilisation.
- aaron-santos 5y agoIt isn't entirely separate either. Often increases in efficiency direct increases in consumption. This observation was made by the English economist William Stanley Jevons and is known as Jevons paradox[1]. More recently, the economists Daniel Khazzoom, Leonard Brookes, and others have analyzed this relationship[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox [2] http://www.iaee.org/en/publications/ejarticle.aspx?id=1091 http://www.iaee.org/en/publications/ejarticle.aspx?id=1091
- s1artibartfast 5y agoIt is a political non starter. US population growth is driven by immigration, not birth rates. Focusing on population reduction in other countries is politically toxic. It is too conceptually close to eugenics, genocide, and racial conflict. That said, the idea of reducing population growth still underpins efforts to improve the standard of living the third world, it just isn't branded as such.