4 ms·
Perhaps you should watch the video a bit closer, she didn't mention killing anybody. She said we would have less environment problems if there were less people,
by jay_kyburz 3y ago
Perhaps you should watch the video a bit closer, she didn't mention killing anybody. She said we would have less environment problems if there were less people, and she is 100% correct.
- astrange 3y agoThose are the same thing. That's how you get there. And she isn't correct, the US uses less water, emits less carbon[0], and has more trees than it did with a much smaller population because we invented productivity-enhancing technology. Conversely, if the population declines you'd be in a deflationary economy, where people will consume all the resources they can now and won't hold off or invest in the future since they expect it to be worse. [0] you're going to say we outsourced it to China. We didn't!
- joker_minmax 3y agoHow exactly can we verify that we haven't outsourced it to China when almost all our consumer goods are manufactured there? Do consumer goods not count in our consumption?
- jay_kyburz 3y agoKilling a living person, and not having a children are not the same thing. Your second statement is just as bonkers as the first. The US uses less water and has more trees than it did before because we care about those things now, not because there are more people.
- astrange 3y agoEven though there being more people, not because. I'm not claiming causation. However, you need a lot of people to have the advanced economy that makes it possible to invent clean energy.