4 ms·
This only holds true if you are ok with areas with high birth rates and low consumption remaining poor and refusing to let them migrate to the rest of the world
by themgt 5y ago
This only holds true if you are ok with areas with high birth rates and low consumption remaining poor and refusing to let them migrate to the rest of the world, which seems a hugely unlikely scenario in practice.
It seems most likely that either these areas will develop economically and thus consumption will rise, or their skyrocketing populations and lack of development will cause rising internal tensions/crises and pressure to emigrate to the higher-consumption parts of the world. Most likely some of both.
"Adding 2.5 billion poor people to the planet in 80 years won't be a problem because we'll ensure they stay impoverished and in their home countries" isn't really as palatable a solution to overpopulation as you make it sound.
- ashtonkem 5y agoYour point is true if and only if we cannot decouple standards of living and carbon emissions. Then again if that’s true then we are doomed; restricting the world’s poor from breeding or consuming would not be enough to save this planet, the global rich currently produces more than enough CO2 to damn us all. The only way to save our species is to find a way to decouple standards of living from carbon production. Anything else is insufficient and can only delay the inevitable at best.
- giantg2 5y ago"Your point is true if and only if we cannot decouple standards of living and carbon emissions." There are other concerns like food production, soil erosion, fish stocks, loss of biodiversity, etc. Its not just about CO2.