4 ms·
Au contraire. The sooner we reduce the World's population to more sustainable levels, the sooner we get on top of many of Humanity's problems. Like: Climate Cha
by simonblack 5y ago
Au contraire. The sooner we reduce the World's population to more sustainable levels, the sooner we get on top of many of Humanity's problems. Like: Climate Change, loss of ground water, loss of fish, pollution levels, soil depletion, loss of forests, and more.
If we had a quarter of the population, we'd have only a quarter as much CO2 going into the atmosphere every year, for instance.
Without needing to 'kill off' people, that could be managed within a couple of generations (say 50-60 years) by having a policy of 'one child per woman'.
Yes, there would be disruption for a short period, but that would be offset by reduced need of forever-expanding exploitation of the Earth.
But of course, that's all a pipe dream. Humans will never allow that to happen, as they breed themselves to oblivion. No way will Humans last even a tenth as long as the Dinosaurs did.
- Grakel 5y agoWe've only run out of room until we start seriously exploring space. Just in the solar system there's a near infinity of mining, manufacturing and building to be done and problems to be solved. There's also a large segment of the population who yearn for the safety valve society had before we filled the planet: if you don't like it, go into the wilderness.
- Zababa 5y ago> Humans will never allow that to happen, as they breed themselves to oblivion. The fertility maps are clear on that: it's not a Humanity problem, it's an economic/cultural problem.