3 ms·

We don't have continuous exponential population growth. That's not to say that we won't exceed the limits of the biosphere at some point to meet our needs, but

We don't have continuous exponential population growth. That's not to say that we won't exceed the limits of the biosphere at some point to meet our needs, but as a society becomes more developed the birth rate falls off massively. Just 60 years ago the US and Canada had a fertility rate of 4, meaning 4 children born to the average woman. In the US, it's now 1.64 and Canada is just 1.4 - well below the replacement rate of 2.1-ish. The best way to be anti-growth is actually to just encourage a society to develop. The best way to lower fertility rate is to educate young women and girls and to raise incomes. >In decreasing order of strength, fertility (TFR) correlates negatively with education, CPR, and GDP per capita, and positively with religiosity. [1] The only reason the population of developed countries is stable or growing is immigration, but that will only last so long - development comes for us all. [edit] The graphs of income and HDI vs. fertility rate are pretty clear. [2] Rather than cancer, it seems more like population growth is favored in less-developed societies to encourage development - and once development happens, the population growth ends and the population even meaningfully contracts. [1] https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-8331-7 https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

xupybd 4y ago
I wouldn't leave out birth control technology either. That has had a massive impact on population growth.
kaashif 4y ago
The incentives here seem worrying. Developed countries must keep other countries undeveloped to maintain the flow of immigration. If everyone develops, Europe and North America's power and share of global GDP will decrease significantly.
- drudolph914 4y ago
  agreed - and this just reinforces one of the core themes in the article. on a long term scale, this hyper growth capitalist phase we’re in now doesn’t work. talk about a “non scalable solution.“ I get you’re talking about a more macro level issue, but at the core, capitalism is what’s driving this anti-pattern into existence. I’m not someone who’s anti-capitalism, but the fact that it takes the concern of our global GDP to consider the livelihood of people underdeveloped countries is depressing

xupybd 4y ago

I wouldn't leave out birth control technology either. That has had a massive impact on population growth.

kaashif 4y ago

The incentives here seem worrying. Developed countries must keep other countries undeveloped to maintain the flow of immigration. If everyone develops, Europe and North America's power and share of global GDP will decrease significantly.

drudolph914 4y ago
agreed - and this just reinforces one of the core themes in the article. on a long term scale, this hyper growth capitalist phase we’re in now doesn’t work. talk about a “non scalable solution.“ I get you’re talking about a more macro level issue, but at the core, capitalism is what’s driving this anti-pattern into existence. I’m not someone who’s anti-capitalism, but the fact that it takes the concern of our global GDP to consider the livelihood of people underdeveloped countries is depressing