3 ms·
The thing is quantity of life is growing where quality of life is low, and the quality of life is growing where quantity of life is low. So it's sort of the wo
by yason 15y ago
The thing is quantity of life is growing where quality of life is low, and the quality of life is growing where quantity of life is low.
So it's sort of the worst of both worlds: the developed countries could afford a population growth in a humane and civilized way but they won't. Conversely, developing countries with overly high population growth become a terrible mess that they couldn't afford.
However, I also think that nature will balance itself back in a way or another. Of course, we won't be asked whether we would like to join or not, and necessarily isn't going to be a nice ride, but the tension we, as a species, are building will release at some point.
The best part of unsustainability is that it can't be sustained.
- rsheridan6 15y agoThere's nothing stopping high birth rates in areas where quality of life is low - it just has to be balanced by high death rates. Suppose there's a country where it's possible to feed a million people, and there are already a million people. There is no economic growth. Suppose about a quarter of the population is women of childbearing age, and they each have a baby every five years, so each year there are 50,000 new people. That's perfectly sustainable as long as 50,000 of people die each year. That's 1/20 of the population dying each year, so that implies high death rates and short lifespans. It would suck, but it would be sustainable. And that's pretty much how the world was for most of history.