5 ms·

Can’t we just institute population controls? I feel like that’s a higher confidence path to curb emissions while not requiring a change in quality of life.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
baron816 5y ago
No, that’ll neither work to solve the problem, nor would it work as a matter of practicality. We either need to get to 0 net emissions pretty much now, or negative emissions in the not too distant future. Even if we cut the world’s population by half through very unethical means, and did nothing else, we’d still be in trouble. We’re going to have to push forward and innovate our way out, most likely.
- EastOfTruth 5y ago
  dumping ashes in the ocean will work much better....
  - kataklasm 5y ago
    Do you really think the the large part of human population around the world living in extreme poverty (multiple billion people) are the problem? As one poster said, if they do transition to "middle class" (whatever that means to them) then they will become part of the climate problem. But right now, the problem lies with us, our hyper-capitalist and super corrupt western societies. Don't distract from that with whataboutism to Africa. Currently, we (meaning western countries, not just geographically, I would count China for example as a western country as well, since to me "western" is a financial/economic definition, not a geographical one) are the problem, not the people living in mud huts, drinking water that Nestlé seized and now sells to them.
xionon 5y ago
Is this sarcasm? Population controls are a massive change to quality of life for most people.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  It depends what sort of population control is being suggested. Already, most people live in countries with less than replacement fertility (i.e. with a total fertility rate (TFR) below 2.1 births per woman).[0] That means if someone wants developed countries to reduce their population, they are really arguing for stricter limits on immigration, and possibly for those developed countries to use economic pressure to make people in poorer countries have fewer children. Even if the people advocating for that aren't motivated by racism, colonialism, or eugenicism, it might be difficult to convince people of their good intentions. [0] https://ifstudies.org/blog/half-the-worlds-population-is-reaching-below-replacement-fertility https://ifstudies.org/blog/half-the-worlds-population-is-rea...
  - User23 5y ago
    > Already, most people live in countries with less than replacement fertility (i.e. with a total fertility rate (TFR) below 2.1 births per woman). This is a textbook example of what unsustainable means. In the long run most people will live in the countries with the highest fertility rates.
  - R0b0t1 5y ago
    > Even if the people advocating for that aren't motivated by racism, colonialism, or eugenicism, it might be difficult to convince people of their good intentions. It's enough to let them starve.
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    I am thinking out loud here but I am imagining a simple tax. If someone wants to have a child they pay a massive offset fee. Put another way people have to give up spending on other things or create more value for society (earn more income) to have that right. Perhaps this cutoff can be decided on a per country basis to get every country on board. It’s either that or we rely on a very complex series of technological and policy changes that are potentially not going to work out and will cause everyone to live more limited lives of restraint rather than live freely.
holomorphically 5y ago
Most developed nations are not growing anymore in terms of population so this is essentially already happening without any government intervention.
bpodgursky 5y ago
The vast majority of net-new carbon emissions over the next 30 years are going to be the 4 billion people in the developing world who are transitioning into the middle class. Population controls (especially in the developed world) would be 100% pointless. Unless you're talking about invading and sterilizing people in developing countries... and I really hope you're not.
- ygjb 5y ago
  No, just countries building stronger borders to prevent ecological and economic migrants from escaping the countries that don't have enormous wealth as a buffer against change. :(
kevingadd 5y ago
Population controls won't fix our emissions problems. A bunch of our emissions are from things that won't suddenly stop even if we drop population growth to 0, like manufacturing and power generation.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  Wouldn’t a smaller population consume less goods and power?
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    In the long run yes, however, (a) realistic population controls would likely mean a stable population, not a much smaller one, so that doesn't help much for deceasing consumption; and (b) even with totally unrealistic population controls (e.g. zero births worldwide) the population decrease would be slower than the time scale in which we need to reduce emissions - zero births would mean a population decrease of less than 1%/year (currently 60m deaths/year over 7.8 billion, the world skews young-ish so the death rates don't match what you'd expect from life expenctancy) but we need an emissions decrease of 1.5%-2%/year to keep the global warming in reasonable limits. A smaller population would consume less goods and power, but since we need much less carbon emissions, achieving that through a population decrease alone would require a much smaller population i.e. so much extra death that IMHO that would be more horrible than the consequences of any climate change.
kingkawn 5y ago
The population of China is expected to halve in 45 years. Japan down to 1/3rd of its currently level by century’s end. We are doing it already, no need to impose a heartless bureaucracy over it.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

baron816 5y ago

No, that’ll neither work to solve the problem, nor would it work as a matter of practicality. We either need to get to 0 net emissions pretty much now, or negative emissions in the not too distant future. Even if we cut the world’s population by half through very unethical means, and did nothing else, we’d still be in trouble. We’re going to have to push forward and innovate our way out, most likely.

EastOfTruth 5y ago
dumping ashes in the ocean will work much better....
- kataklasm 5y ago
  Do you really think the the large part of human population around the world living in extreme poverty (multiple billion people) are the problem? As one poster said, if they do transition to "middle class" (whatever that means to them) then they will become part of the climate problem. But right now, the problem lies with us, our hyper-capitalist and super corrupt western societies. Don't distract from that with whataboutism to Africa. Currently, we (meaning western countries, not just geographically, I would count China for example as a western country as well, since to me "western" is a financial/economic definition, not a geographical one) are the problem, not the people living in mud huts, drinking water that Nestlé seized and now sells to them.

xionon 5y ago

Is this sarcasm? Population controls are a massive change to quality of life for most people.

dane-pgp 5y ago
It depends what sort of population control is being suggested. Already, most people live in countries with less than replacement fertility (i.e. with a total fertility rate (TFR) below 2.1 births per woman).[0] That means if someone wants developed countries to reduce their population, they are really arguing for stricter limits on immigration, and possibly for those developed countries to use economic pressure to make people in poorer countries have fewer children. Even if the people advocating for that aren't motivated by racism, colonialism, or eugenicism, it might be difficult to convince people of their good intentions. [0] https://ifstudies.org/blog/half-the-worlds-population-is-reaching-below-replacement-fertility https://ifstudies.org/blog/half-the-worlds-population-is-rea...
- User23 5y ago
  > Already, most people live in countries with less than replacement fertility (i.e. with a total fertility rate (TFR) below 2.1 births per woman). This is a textbook example of what unsustainable means. In the long run most people will live in the countries with the highest fertility rates.
- R0b0t1 5y ago
  > Even if the people advocating for that aren't motivated by racism, colonialism, or eugenicism, it might be difficult to convince people of their good intentions. It's enough to let them starve.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  I am thinking out loud here but I am imagining a simple tax. If someone wants to have a child they pay a massive offset fee. Put another way people have to give up spending on other things or create more value for society (earn more income) to have that right. Perhaps this cutoff can be decided on a per country basis to get every country on board. It’s either that or we rely on a very complex series of technological and policy changes that are potentially not going to work out and will cause everyone to live more limited lives of restraint rather than live freely.

holomorphically 5y ago

Most developed nations are not growing anymore in terms of population so this is essentially already happening without any government intervention.

bpodgursky 5y ago

The vast majority of net-new carbon emissions over the next 30 years are going to be the 4 billion people in the developing world who are transitioning into the middle class. Population controls (especially in the developed world) would be 100% pointless. Unless you're talking about invading and sterilizing people in developing countries... and I really hope you're not.

ygjb 5y ago
No, just countries building stronger borders to prevent ecological and economic migrants from escaping the countries that don't have enormous wealth as a buffer against change. :(

kevingadd 5y ago

Population controls won't fix our emissions problems. A bunch of our emissions are from things that won't suddenly stop even if we drop population growth to 0, like manufacturing and power generation.

throwawaysea 5y ago
Wouldn’t a smaller population consume less goods and power?
- PeterisP 5y ago
  In the long run yes, however, (a) realistic population controls would likely mean a stable population, not a much smaller one, so that doesn't help much for deceasing consumption; and (b) even with totally unrealistic population controls (e.g. zero births worldwide) the population decrease would be slower than the time scale in which we need to reduce emissions - zero births would mean a population decrease of less than 1%/year (currently 60m deaths/year over 7.8 billion, the world skews young-ish so the death rates don't match what you'd expect from life expenctancy) but we need an emissions decrease of 1.5%-2%/year to keep the global warming in reasonable limits. A smaller population would consume less goods and power, but since we need much less carbon emissions, achieving that through a population decrease alone would require a much smaller population i.e. so much extra death that IMHO that would be more horrible than the consequences of any climate change.

kingkawn 5y ago

The population of China is expected to halve in 45 years. Japan down to 1/3rd of its currently level by century’s end. We are doing it already, no need to impose a heartless bureaucracy over it.