4 ms·
Isn't global population already projected to stabilize in 100 years? The only way you could accelerate this is through aggressive policy measures to allow unive
by slothtrop 5y ago
Isn't global population already projected to stabilize in 100 years? The only way you could accelerate this is through aggressive policy measures to allow universal access to contraceptives, and investments to hasten development of manufacturing or other (which, in the interim, will raise emissions - but it would be unethical to disallow it) in the 3rd world. I'm for it but I don't expect it. The alternative is what China opted for which is likely not possible in developing countries.
There's a class conflict in the backdrop and I see this as the reason media is planting the idea that consumers ought to be content with less, not because of the environment. They still want and expect you to consume, but will spin lower quality of life (owing to unaffordability of housing and certain lifestyles) as a virtue. Realistically your carbon footprint +/- on an individual level stays in the same rough ballpark if you live in the West since a lot of it is due to city infrastructure, electricity, gas. It's just compounded by sheer population. In my view everyone ought be able to live and pursue a life of high quality; reducing quality of life is not the solution, it's a problem. The solution will lie in innovation, population stagnation, growing economy for developing nations, etc.
- mc32 5y agoObviously we don't want to go the route China went (even without their bad policy, most people there we having fewer children). But as you say contraceptive availability and education coupled with opportunities.
- alexgmcm 5y agoI mean "Stop at two" isn't a particularly awful policy, yet that is sufficient to curtail population growth. I doubt it even needs to be a policy in many countries - I don't know many people with more than two kids.
- mc32 5y agoAgreed. Two even three. The issue is when most people go over that. It's not usually because they want to but because they don't have the means or options to control their family's growth.
- skywal_l 5y agoPopulation will stabilized. But the question is how it will be stabilized. We could do it in a controlled way or through environmental collapse, war, pandemic...
- slothtrop 5y agoThe projection is owing to improved quality of life through global trade. Since the 20th Century the rate of extreme poverty has been decimated and continues to drop. In 1st world countries the fertility rates are already stagnant. The growth rate is targeted and achieved through immigration, from countries with lower quality of life and higher child mortality.
- kiba 5y agoConsuming less can be associated with better quality of life. More walkable neighborhoods mean you need cars for less errands, which means less money spent on road infrastructure and more money being invested in more efficient solutions.
- slothtrop 5y agoIt's understood that opting to live in high-density areas means smaller living space in general. The urban/rural price disparity today is massive however and many could scarcely afford a room the size of a closet, but notwithstanding, whether this provides a "better quality" depends on what a person values. If you value what a detached home brings, that's what increases your quality of life. Having the choice matters.
- agumonkey 5y agoseconded, most "modern" cities evolved blindly but there's almost nothing required in dense urban areas in terms of mobility. biking, walking can do a lot. thinking people pay expensive cars and gym club to forget about their bills is such a sad joke.