3 ms·

Global overpopulation is absolutely a part of the equation, and everyone is deeply uncomfortable talking about it because there are no palatable solutions to th

Global overpopulation is absolutely a part of the equation, and everyone is deeply uncomfortable talking about it because there are no palatable solutions to that specific problem. Humans, as a species, exhibit all the damaging properties of a cancerous growth, and our habitat can no longer support us. As George Carlin said: the planet will be fine, it’s the humans that are fucked!

epivosism 3y ago
This seems a bit out of date. I think you need to mention how you feel about below replacement TFR in most of the world to make this position understandable.
- mdekkers 3y ago
  Good point. As per wiki: > As of 2020, the total fertility rate for the world is 2.3. The global TFR has declined rapidly since the 1960s, and some forecasters like Sanjeev Sanyal argue that the effective global fertility rate will fall below global replacement rate, estimated to be 2.3, in the 2020s. This would stabilize world population sometime during the period 2050–2070. The United Nations predicts that global fertility will continue to decline for the remainder of this century and reach a below-replacement level of 1.8 by 2100, and that world population will peak during the period 2084-2088. Whilst there is obviously nuance here, even assuming that world population peaks well before 2088, that means we still have a lot of growth to support until that time, and then we have many generations to go before we see a decline to a point where this planet can reasonably be expected to sustain us. Do you believe, given the pace of change we are seeing in this environments’ systems, viewed in the context of the actual tangible change we are implementing to mitigate the negative impacts to us as a species, that there is enough time for that? EDIT: for some perspective, see also the current headcount: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ and expected future headcount: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-projections/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-populat...
ido 3y ago
We’re already heading towards a peak mid-century and then a slow decline of global populations based on existing trends.
- mdekkers 3y ago
  Correct. As per my edit in my other response in this thread, we would still be at 10+ billion in 2100. It isn’t like “oh, hey, don’t worry, it’s going down guys!” We should absolutely worry.
sdenton4 3y ago
The solution is well understood: universal education and readily available birth control. It's already working in the more developed economies.
- forgetfreeman 3y ago
  That this is a solution remains to be seen. Does this result in net negative population growth? The evidence seems to suggest it does. Will it result in a sharp enough decline in total population numbers fast enough to mean anything? That seems unlikely.
- mdekkers 3y ago
  Absolutely. Now all we need is politicians and their constituents around the globe to get on board with this. Again with the George Carlin quotes though (watch the clip “it’s a big club”) most governments are not _that_ interested in a deeply educated general population, _or_ birth control. Where are we going to get all of our obedient little workers from? So not holding my breath :)

epivosism 3y ago

This seems a bit out of date. I think you need to mention how you feel about below replacement TFR in most of the world to make this position understandable.

mdekkers 3y ago
Good point. As per wiki: > As of 2020, the total fertility rate for the world is 2.3. The global TFR has declined rapidly since the 1960s, and some forecasters like Sanjeev Sanyal argue that the effective global fertility rate will fall below global replacement rate, estimated to be 2.3, in the 2020s. This would stabilize world population sometime during the period 2050–2070. The United Nations predicts that global fertility will continue to decline for the remainder of this century and reach a below-replacement level of 1.8 by 2100, and that world population will peak during the period 2084-2088. Whilst there is obviously nuance here, even assuming that world population peaks well before 2088, that means we still have a lot of growth to support until that time, and then we have many generations to go before we see a decline to a point where this planet can reasonably be expected to sustain us. Do you believe, given the pace of change we are seeing in this environments’ systems, viewed in the context of the actual tangible change we are implementing to mitigate the negative impacts to us as a species, that there is enough time for that? EDIT: for some perspective, see also the current headcount: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ and expected future headcount: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-projections/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-populat...

ido 3y ago

We’re already heading towards a peak mid-century and then a slow decline of global populations based on existing trends.

mdekkers 3y ago
Correct. As per my edit in my other response in this thread, we would still be at 10+ billion in 2100. It isn’t like “oh, hey, don’t worry, it’s going down guys!” We should absolutely worry.

sdenton4 3y ago

The solution is well understood: universal education and readily available birth control. It's already working in the more developed economies.

forgetfreeman 3y ago
That this is a solution remains to be seen. Does this result in net negative population growth? The evidence seems to suggest it does. Will it result in a sharp enough decline in total population numbers fast enough to mean anything? That seems unlikely.
mdekkers 3y ago
Absolutely. Now all we need is politicians and their constituents around the globe to get on board with this. Again with the George Carlin quotes though (watch the clip “it’s a big club”) most governments are not _that_ interested in a deeply educated general population, _or_ birth control. Where are we going to get all of our obedient little workers from? So not holding my breath :)