4 ms·

From a demographic perspective I think it is safe to say that human population is not exactly on the brink of extinction. I think there is ample buffer for fut

From a demographic perspective I think it is safe to say that human population is not exactly on the brink of extinction. I think there is ample buffer for future generations to correct the population trajectory if under-population happens to be a non-imaginary issue for our species. In my opinion, many ecological problems would be simpler to solve with half or a quarter of the current population. And the imbalance between old and young would only last for a few decades.

RetpolineDrama 3y ago
Our entire global economic order is built on top of infinite-growth, and the young outnumbering the old. Negative slope population will lead to mass economic instability and eventually war.
- marnett 3y ago
  Even in a post industrial economy?
- wizofaus 3y ago
  Economic instability, yes, that seems inevitable as people adjust to new realities. But what would be the trigger for war if there are fewer and fewer of us wanting access to land/natural resources? Sure, access to manmade resources (and other services) will become an issue but it won't be much of a war if it's the older/less fit members of society fighting against the rest for their share...
  - tuatoru 3y ago
    The trigger for war is variability of the rate of decline among different countries with different ideologies and different outgroups. A USA with 70 million people would feel very threatened by an Iraq with 300 million, for example. Just as Russia feels very threatened by Europe now.
    - wizofaus 3y ago
      The USA already has less than a 3rd of the population of India or China, but I don't think feels seriously threatened by either (in terms of a likely direct attack).
- TheBigSalad 3y ago
  Our economy isn't based on the population increasing.
germandiago 3y ago
I fail to see what the ecological problem actually is given that the land factor (economic term, hope I translated correctly) and discoveries of new ways to use resources are dynamic factors. It is really difficult to make predictions x years ahead of most topics, the further the harder when you take into account the dynamism of these factors and the innovations (discoveries on how to use new materials, for example, that replace old ones, etc.)
- stephc_int13 3y ago
  Population is simply the most potent factor in everything our species is doing, less people = less energy use, less farming, less fishing, less waste, less everything.
- lucb1e 3y ago
  > I fail to see what the ecological problem actually is It's as you said: > It is really difficult to make predictions x years ahead of [things like] innovations Humans already use more resources than they regenerate (the definition of unsustainable). Currently, most of the world population lives in relative poverty compared to the people in places like Germany, USA, Japan, etc. It would be fair to have everyone live at this standard, but that costs even more resources, making it even less sustainable! We can hardly prevent other countries from wanting to innovate, so it will happen, and our problem will get worse if we do not gain better technology (and/or reduce our consumption of animal products, learn to stop heating offices across weekends, etc. It works on both the supply and demand side of resources). Precisely because it is hard to predict whether future innovations will materialize soon enough to fix those problems in a way that we do not reduce everyone's living standards, we cannot rely on the innovations happening and being deployed earth-wide in time
  - germandiago 3y ago
    > Humans already use more resources than they regenerate Even if this was true, recycling can exist. Also, other materials can replace older ones. Given these, I am not sure what the right strategy would be, unless it is really urgent and justified (I always hear a lot of generic alarms but no concrete facts that something is going to happen AND it happens). Take into account that, especially for developing countries, resources and cheap energy are critical for development. No matter how much effort a spanish does, for example, in the reduction of CO2 (given the models are correct and that it is humans who warm up The Earth, something I am not convinced of at all), we are around 0.8% of total emissions. On the other hand, preventing China from burning coal was (last time I checked) making 400 million people back into poverty. Do you see the problem? The problem could be ecological to some extent. But... are we controlling investment vs return? Are models true? For me it is impossible and I think there has been a strong bias towards exaggerating because there is a lot of money in the middle, independently of the truth. That is my current view. They have been announcing the apocalypse since the 90s: everything flooded, global warming (that they conveniently changed to "climate change")... a lot of weird stuff. A highly politicized area of discussion and a huge business for some.
hankman86 3y ago
How do you tell young families (women in particular) to have more children to avoid population collapse? This is a very real problem in a number of wealthy countries. I am not aware of government policies that have managed to coerce educated women to be wanting to have more (or any) children.
- stephc_int13 3y ago
  To be clear, I don't think this is the business of governments and nobody should be coerced to have or not to have children. I believe that in case of population collapse, the solution will naturally appear to large enough number of people, evolution shaped us to reproduce, I don't think this instinct is likely to disappear, even if we might not fully understand it and why girls and women tend to have less children in some conditions (it happened before, in antiquity, and was considered to be a problem by Roman politicians, many of the current traditions around marriages were first created as laws...)
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    Evolution wasn’t aware of birth control.
  - Qem 3y ago
    > the solution will naturally appear to large enough number of people, evolution shaped us to reproduce. The solution evolution found was to make us really like having sex. But then we invented hormonal birth control, and sex became uncoupled from reproduction. Evolution can't help us here, it works slowly over thousands of years, and can't uninvent birth control.
    - foob 3y ago
      > it works slowly over thousands of years This isn't always the case; evolution can happen relatively quickly in response to rapid changes in the environment [1]. There are plenty of people alive today who have particularly strong urges to have children, and the widespread introduction of birth control creates a major selective pressure towards any heritable genes that produce or enhance those urges. The effects of this could be very significant over even a relatively small number of generations. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

RetpolineDrama 3y ago

Our entire global economic order is built on top of infinite-growth, and the young outnumbering the old. Negative slope population will lead to mass economic instability and eventually war.

marnett 3y ago
Even in a post industrial economy?
wizofaus 3y ago
Economic instability, yes, that seems inevitable as people adjust to new realities. But what would be the trigger for war if there are fewer and fewer of us wanting access to land/natural resources? Sure, access to manmade resources (and other services) will become an issue but it won't be much of a war if it's the older/less fit members of society fighting against the rest for their share...
- tuatoru 3y ago
  The trigger for war is variability of the rate of decline among different countries with different ideologies and different outgroups. A USA with 70 million people would feel very threatened by an Iraq with 300 million, for example. Just as Russia feels very threatened by Europe now.
  - wizofaus 3y ago
    The USA already has less than a 3rd of the population of India or China, but I don't think feels seriously threatened by either (in terms of a likely direct attack).
TheBigSalad 3y ago
Our economy isn't based on the population increasing.

germandiago 3y ago

I fail to see what the ecological problem actually is given that the land factor (economic term, hope I translated correctly) and discoveries of new ways to use resources are dynamic factors. It is really difficult to make predictions x years ahead of most topics, the further the harder when you take into account the dynamism of these factors and the innovations (discoveries on how to use new materials, for example, that replace old ones, etc.)

stephc_int13 3y ago
Population is simply the most potent factor in everything our species is doing, less people = less energy use, less farming, less fishing, less waste, less everything.
lucb1e 3y ago
> I fail to see what the ecological problem actually is It's as you said: > It is really difficult to make predictions x years ahead of [things like] innovations Humans already use more resources than they regenerate (the definition of unsustainable). Currently, most of the world population lives in relative poverty compared to the people in places like Germany, USA, Japan, etc. It would be fair to have everyone live at this standard, but that costs even more resources, making it even less sustainable! We can hardly prevent other countries from wanting to innovate, so it will happen, and our problem will get worse if we do not gain better technology (and/or reduce our consumption of animal products, learn to stop heating offices across weekends, etc. It works on both the supply and demand side of resources). Precisely because it is hard to predict whether future innovations will materialize soon enough to fix those problems in a way that we do not reduce everyone's living standards, we cannot rely on the innovations happening and being deployed earth-wide in time
- germandiago 3y ago
  > Humans already use more resources than they regenerate Even if this was true, recycling can exist. Also, other materials can replace older ones. Given these, I am not sure what the right strategy would be, unless it is really urgent and justified (I always hear a lot of generic alarms but no concrete facts that something is going to happen AND it happens). Take into account that, especially for developing countries, resources and cheap energy are critical for development. No matter how much effort a spanish does, for example, in the reduction of CO2 (given the models are correct and that it is humans who warm up The Earth, something I am not convinced of at all), we are around 0.8% of total emissions. On the other hand, preventing China from burning coal was (last time I checked) making 400 million people back into poverty. Do you see the problem? The problem could be ecological to some extent. But... are we controlling investment vs return? Are models true? For me it is impossible and I think there has been a strong bias towards exaggerating because there is a lot of money in the middle, independently of the truth. That is my current view. They have been announcing the apocalypse since the 90s: everything flooded, global warming (that they conveniently changed to "climate change")... a lot of weird stuff. A highly politicized area of discussion and a huge business for some.

hankman86 3y ago

How do you tell young families (women in particular) to have more children to avoid population collapse? This is a very real problem in a number of wealthy countries. I am not aware of government policies that have managed to coerce educated women to be wanting to have more (or any) children.

stephc_int13 3y ago
To be clear, I don't think this is the business of governments and nobody should be coerced to have or not to have children. I believe that in case of population collapse, the solution will naturally appear to large enough number of people, evolution shaped us to reproduce, I don't think this instinct is likely to disappear, even if we might not fully understand it and why girls and women tend to have less children in some conditions (it happened before, in antiquity, and was considered to be a problem by Roman politicians, many of the current traditions around marriages were first created as laws...)
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  Evolution wasn’t aware of birth control.
- Qem 3y ago
  > the solution will naturally appear to large enough number of people, evolution shaped us to reproduce. The solution evolution found was to make us really like having sex. But then we invented hormonal birth control, and sex became uncoupled from reproduction. Evolution can't help us here, it works slowly over thousands of years, and can't uninvent birth control.
  - foob 3y ago
    > it works slowly over thousands of years This isn't always the case; evolution can happen relatively quickly in response to rapid changes in the environment [1]. There are plenty of people alive today who have particularly strong urges to have children, and the widespread introduction of birth control creates a major selective pressure towards any heritable genes that produce or enhance those urges. The effects of this could be very significant over even a relatively small number of generations. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium