4 ms·
> We could be billions more if we chose to live this way. This line of reasoning is problematic as it just delays the stabilization. Maybe we could have a few
by perfunctory 5y ago
> We could be billions more if we chose to live this way.
This line of reasoning is problematic as it just delays the stabilization. Maybe we could have a few billion more people now but surely there must be a limit somewhere. 10B, 50, 100? Sooner or later we'll have to stabilize.
> For some reasons, all the people I know who campaign for population stabilization/reduction are among those with the worst footprint.
To be clear, I personally believe we have to both stabilize the population AND dramatically reduce footprint per capita.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago>This line of reasoning is problematic as it just delays the stabilization. Maybe we could have a few billion more people now but surely there must be a limit somewhere. 10B, 50, 100? Sooner or later we'll have to stabilize. The thing is, people will only reproduce less if they adhere to the cause. So if we get people to realize we all must care for our environment in order to live well, then you don't have to limit population growth. Limiting population growth will always be less effective than changing a way of life (which makes people not want too many children). If you restrict reproduction, expect people to want more consumption (at least to compensate).