3 ms·
> I don't get the argument against having less children. The [current] economic model presupposes infinite growth. You can't have infinite growth with a declin
by Swizec 5y ago
> I don't get the argument against having less children.
The [current] economic model presupposes infinite growth. You can't have infinite growth with a declining population.
- arvinsim 5y agoTrue. Even if we do find a solution to replace the current economic model, the transition would be messy with a high chance of violence.
- sokoloff 5y agoYou can’t have infinite growth on a finite planet, either.
- gruez 5y agocolonize other planets then?
- sokoloff 5y agoI hope we do eventually and specifically outside this solar system, which has a clock that’s shorter than the heat death master clock.
- mathematically 5y agoTechnology for doing so does not exist. Before we can terraform other planets we'll have to learn how to terraform this one. Global warming is actually a great challenge and overcoming it would mean developing the technology that would help colonize other planets, e.g. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/myco-architecture https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/myco-architecture.
- pyuser583 5y agoHow would that help? If half the population of earth (randomly chosen) moved to an inhabitant planet in another solar system, wouldn’t the reduction in population shrink the economy?
- gruez 5y agoPresumably there would be trade between the planets. Did european colonization of the americas shrink population in europe?
- pyuser583 5y agoParts of it. Ireland’s population shrunk consistently from 1800 to 1960, mostly due to expatriation. Economy mostly grew. The economics are complicated - they were part of then British Imperial economy, which good or bad depending on specifics (corn laws, famines, etc).