6 ms·

It is debatable whether we really have an overpopulation problem or not. Pollution in general is caused by industry not individuals. You could argue big industr

It is debatable whether we really have an overpopulation problem or not. Pollution in general is caused by industry not individuals. You could argue big industry is the result of a large population but it's still a systems problem imo. Reversing population growth means having an ever increasing population of elderly people and increased burden on the young to support those elderly. It's hard to see solutions to this that aren't dystopian and downright cruel.

wizofaus 4y ago
Bringing in younger migrants from countries still growing in population to help look after our elderly is probably the only realistic one (we already do that pretty heavily in Australia despite population growth). At least there's not a problem of space/infrastructure to solve.
- jack_pp 4y ago
  That's a good solution for english/latin speaking countries since there's a large pool of migrants to choose from which already know the language but for a country like Japan with its niche language and specific customs.. it's much tougher unless they wish to change their culture which they probably don't and having migrants assimilate into their culture isn't an easy ask either.
  - spacebanana7 4y ago
    It's also only a viable solution for countries with small/medium populations. As India and China start ageing it's going to be hard for them to find the hundreds of millions of migrants required.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      I'd imagine China will indeed start to pull out all stops to attract younger migrants at some point, and I'd guess many may even come from India, and certainly from large countries with high fertility like Nigeria. But sure, it can only help so much if too much of the world's population is living in countries with unbalanced demographics.
      - anovikov 4y ago
        By that time India will get close to par to China in per capita GDP, and will hopefully still remain democratic. Why would Indians do that?
        wizofaus 4y ago
        Even if India's per capita GDP has largely caught up, there'd still be a substantial underclass of young workers who are likely to be attracted by higher incomes they could get in China, given the differences in income distribution. And migrants nearly always sacrifice a certain amount of democratic franchise just by virtue of not living in a country where they have citizenship - it doesn't seem to be a great deterrent, compared to other cultural/language barriers and having to live far from family etc.
- pigsty 4y ago
  All of those worker source countries are facing their own aging problems. It’s not a solution.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    They may eventually. And no, it's not a long term global solution, but it buys enough time to avoid the worst impacts in a real demographic crunch. You are right though that, for instance, the outflux of healthcare works from countries like the Phillipines to Australia and other nations with greater income potential does cause strain on their own healthcare systems.
aylmao 4y ago
We do have an overpopulation problem if we expect to increase the quality of life of everyone on Earth. Wealth-wise, the global bottom 50% emit on average 1.4 tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) per year. The top 10% emits 28.7 tCO2e [1]. We're not talking about billionaires when we mention "the top 10%. This was a 2019 study, so 10% of the population was about 770 million people— that's roughly the population of the whole of Europe [2]. That bottom 50% deserve their living standards to be elevated. They deserve and should get sewage, home appliances, water pipes, electricity, cars, meat, video games, disposable income, etc etc. When that happens, half of the population could be producing one or two orders of magnitude more tCO2e. Someone in that 10% right now is producing 205x more tCO2e than someone in that bottom 50%, and it isn't because they own private jets, it's because they can afford a washer and dryer. [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00955-z#:~:text=Global%20carbon%20inequality%20between%20individuals&text=The%20global%20bottom%2050%25%20emit,16.9%25%20of%20the%20total https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00955-z#:~:text=G...). [2]: https://www.worldometers.info/geography/7-continents/ https://www.worldometers.info/geography/7-continents/
- huijzer 4y ago
  > We do have an overpopulation problem if we expect to increase the quality of life of everyone on Earth. This assumes that technology remains constant.
  - chickenimprint 4y ago
    There are fundamental limits to physics, to space and to time. If the next generation wants cars, single family housing, authentic meat and fish and various other amenities, there needs to be less competition for resources. As it stands now, technology is not catching up and a smaller percentage of them will have access to those amenities. We can't just create more oil out of thin air. Progress on batteries is too slow and renewables and electric cars are too expensive. We're already over-fishing and over-farming the earth with our current population. We are missing all of our climate targets, and that's on an earth where most don't live in developed countries yet. We could replace those needs with technology like VR experiences and processed food for example, but I have a hard time seeing how that will be enough.
thefz 4y ago
> Pollution in general is caused by industry not individuals. Industry that serves a number of individuals, so the relationship is direct.

wizofaus 4y ago

Bringing in younger migrants from countries still growing in population to help look after our elderly is probably the only realistic one (we already do that pretty heavily in Australia despite population growth). At least there's not a problem of space/infrastructure to solve.

jack_pp 4y ago
That's a good solution for english/latin speaking countries since there's a large pool of migrants to choose from which already know the language but for a country like Japan with its niche language and specific customs.. it's much tougher unless they wish to change their culture which they probably don't and having migrants assimilate into their culture isn't an easy ask either.
- spacebanana7 4y ago
  It's also only a viable solution for countries with small/medium populations. As India and China start ageing it's going to be hard for them to find the hundreds of millions of migrants required.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    I'd imagine China will indeed start to pull out all stops to attract younger migrants at some point, and I'd guess many may even come from India, and certainly from large countries with high fertility like Nigeria. But sure, it can only help so much if too much of the world's population is living in countries with unbalanced demographics.
    - anovikov 4y ago
      By that time India will get close to par to China in per capita GDP, and will hopefully still remain democratic. Why would Indians do that?
      - wizofaus 4y ago
        Even if India's per capita GDP has largely caught up, there'd still be a substantial underclass of young workers who are likely to be attracted by higher incomes they could get in China, given the differences in income distribution. And migrants nearly always sacrifice a certain amount of democratic franchise just by virtue of not living in a country where they have citizenship - it doesn't seem to be a great deterrent, compared to other cultural/language barriers and having to live far from family etc.
pigsty 4y ago
All of those worker source countries are facing their own aging problems. It’s not a solution.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  They may eventually. And no, it's not a long term global solution, but it buys enough time to avoid the worst impacts in a real demographic crunch. You are right though that, for instance, the outflux of healthcare works from countries like the Phillipines to Australia and other nations with greater income potential does cause strain on their own healthcare systems.

aylmao 4y ago

We do have an overpopulation problem if we expect to increase the quality of life of everyone on Earth. Wealth-wise, the global bottom 50% emit on average 1.4 tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) per year. The top 10% emits 28.7 tCO2e [1]. We're not talking about billionaires when we mention "the top 10%. This was a 2019 study, so 10% of the population was about 770 million people— that's roughly the population of the whole of Europe [2]. That bottom 50% deserve their living standards to be elevated. They deserve and should get sewage, home appliances, water pipes, electricity, cars, meat, video games, disposable income, etc etc. When that happens, half of the population could be producing one or two orders of magnitude more tCO2e. Someone in that 10% right now is producing 205x more tCO2e than someone in that bottom 50%, and it isn't because they own private jets, it's because they can afford a washer and dryer. [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00955-z#:~:text=Global%20carbon%20inequality%20between%20individuals&text=The%20global%20bottom%2050%25%20emit,16.9%25%20of%20the%20total https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00955-z#:~:text=G...). [2]: https://www.worldometers.info/geography/7-continents/ https://www.worldometers.info/geography/7-continents/

huijzer 4y ago
> We do have an overpopulation problem if we expect to increase the quality of life of everyone on Earth. This assumes that technology remains constant.
- chickenimprint 4y ago
  There are fundamental limits to physics, to space and to time. If the next generation wants cars, single family housing, authentic meat and fish and various other amenities, there needs to be less competition for resources. As it stands now, technology is not catching up and a smaller percentage of them will have access to those amenities. We can't just create more oil out of thin air. Progress on batteries is too slow and renewables and electric cars are too expensive. We're already over-fishing and over-farming the earth with our current population. We are missing all of our climate targets, and that's on an earth where most don't live in developed countries yet. We could replace those needs with technology like VR experiences and processed food for example, but I have a hard time seeing how that will be enough.

thefz 4y ago

> Pollution in general is caused by industry not individuals. Industry that serves a number of individuals, so the relationship is direct.