3 ms·

> why would we want to overpopulate? Half the reason we got out of the Malthusian trap is that we finally got enough people that specialisation and economies o

> why would we want to overpopulate? Half the reason we got out of the Malthusian trap is that we finally got enough people that specialisation and economies of scale start to pay off. Wanting to reduce the global population is like saying you want to eliminate economies of scale, which would make life harder for those who remain, not easier.

kubb 4y ago
Economies of scale can happen with a billion people just as well as with 8 billion. The food production grew because of the invention of synthetic fertilizer, not because the more people we have, the cheaper the food can be.
- jefftk 4y ago
  By "just as well" do you mean "still happen some" or "still happen at least as much"? Because the former seems clearly true while there are many counterexamples to the latter (ex: anything with zero marginal cost).
  - kubb 4y ago
    I mean enough to sustain the population, and with a surplus.
Aaargh20318 4y ago
Our current economy is a pyramid scheme on a gigantic scale and dependent on an ever growing population. Since we live on a planet with a finite amount of resources we know infinite growth isn’t sustainable. If we don’t intervene at some point the whole system will inevitably collapse. The longer we wait, the more difficult it will be. Unfortunately we live in a gerontocracy where our leaders don’t care about what happens in the future since they’ll be dead in a few years anyway.
- mastax 4y ago
  Economic growth can mean accomplishing more with the same resources. Very frequently, it does. Very frequently, it doesn't.
avidphantasm 4y ago
You are begging the question. It is far from settled that we “got out” of the trap. Did we buy ourselves some time with the “Green Revolution”, yes. But it’s clear we have exceeded the environment’s waste absorption capacities in local ecosystems (see nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in streams, lakes, and rivers), regionally (see estuarine dead zones where local nutrient pollution collects), as well as globally (chiefly greenhouse gases).
everdrive 4y ago
There's also just quality of life. My life would be significantly worse if 100 million extra people lived in my state. I wouldn't care very much about escaping the Malthusian trap if it meant I had to live in a sprawl of constant density. Broadly speaking, higher and higher density does lead to an overall worse quality of life, which is something of a repugnant conclusion.

kubb 4y ago

Economies of scale can happen with a billion people just as well as with 8 billion. The food production grew because of the invention of synthetic fertilizer, not because the more people we have, the cheaper the food can be.

jefftk 4y ago
By "just as well" do you mean "still happen some" or "still happen at least as much"? Because the former seems clearly true while there are many counterexamples to the latter (ex: anything with zero marginal cost).
- kubb 4y ago
  I mean enough to sustain the population, and with a surplus.

Aaargh20318 4y ago

Our current economy is a pyramid scheme on a gigantic scale and dependent on an ever growing population. Since we live on a planet with a finite amount of resources we know infinite growth isn’t sustainable. If we don’t intervene at some point the whole system will inevitably collapse. The longer we wait, the more difficult it will be. Unfortunately we live in a gerontocracy where our leaders don’t care about what happens in the future since they’ll be dead in a few years anyway.

mastax 4y ago
Economic growth can mean accomplishing more with the same resources. Very frequently, it does. Very frequently, it doesn't.

avidphantasm 4y ago

You are begging the question. It is far from settled that we “got out” of the trap. Did we buy ourselves some time with the “Green Revolution”, yes. But it’s clear we have exceeded the environment’s waste absorption capacities in local ecosystems (see nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in streams, lakes, and rivers), regionally (see estuarine dead zones where local nutrient pollution collects), as well as globally (chiefly greenhouse gases).

everdrive 4y ago

There's also just quality of life. My life would be significantly worse if 100 million extra people lived in my state. I wouldn't care very much about escaping the Malthusian trap if it meant I had to live in a sprawl of constant density. Broadly speaking, higher and higher density does lead to an overall worse quality of life, which is something of a repugnant conclusion.