3 ms·

> My hot take, as we approach the equilibrium population in the world (perhaps the sustainable carrying capacity), fertility rates will naturally decrease. We

by pier25 3y ago

> My hot take, as we approach the equilibrium population in the world (perhaps the sustainable carrying capacity), fertility rates will naturally decrease. We already surpassed that point of equilibrium long ago. Humanity is now consuming 1.7 Earths of resources every year. Some countries like the US consume a lot more than that. https://www.overshootday.org/how-many-earths-or-countries-do-we-need/ https://www.overshootday.org/how-many-earths-or-countries-do...

LUmBULtERA 3y ago
Oh, I agree. It's just strange to me that there seem to be more and more alarmists that speculate that populations will go to 0 or something. With greater and greater amounts of automation available to us, I personally don't see a falling population to be a huge problem.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
I dont think that is a particularly helpful metric. If you are spending 1.7x your income, how much money you have in the bank becomes extremely relevant. Are you broke tomorrow, or do you have enough savings for 1,000 years
- pier25 3y ago
  The important part is that you can't just make more natural resources, unlike money. In some cases we've already passed the peak of certain resources. See this paper about peak minerals from 2012. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378011001361 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09593...
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I hear what you're saying and that is an important consideration as well, but it's very different than saying 1.7 Earths. If someone makes a fraction like that the denominator is relevant. The charitable assumption is that it is 1.7 of the replenishment rate for a given resource. If it's a non replenishable resource, the fraction doesn't make any sense. We're not using 170% of a finite resource per year every year. If you have a finite, non-replenishable resource, then you need a budget for how long you want it to last to come up with a consumption Target.

by pier25 3y ago

LUmBULtERA 3y ago

Oh, I agree. It's just strange to me that there seem to be more and more alarmists that speculate that populations will go to 0 or something. With greater and greater amounts of automation available to us, I personally don't see a falling population to be a huge problem.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

I dont think that is a particularly helpful metric. If you are spending 1.7x your income, how much money you have in the bank becomes extremely relevant. Are you broke tomorrow, or do you have enough savings for 1,000 years

pier25 3y ago
The important part is that you can't just make more natural resources, unlike money. In some cases we've already passed the peak of certain resources. See this paper about peak minerals from 2012. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378011001361 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09593...
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I hear what you're saying and that is an important consideration as well, but it's very different than saying 1.7 Earths. If someone makes a fraction like that the denominator is relevant. The charitable assumption is that it is 1.7 of the replenishment rate for a given resource. If it's a non replenishable resource, the fraction doesn't make any sense. We're not using 170% of a finite resource per year every year. If you have a finite, non-replenishable resource, then you need a budget for how long you want it to last to come up with a consumption Target.