4 ms·
And to what end? I fundamentally disagree with the premise that a downsized human population creates a better future, simply because fewer people will require l
by hankman86 3y ago
And to what end? I fundamentally disagree with the premise that a downsized human population creates a better future, simply because fewer people will require less land, pollute less etc. This not to argue that land use, pollution, climate change etc. are not serious problems. Population collapse is way worse though from an individual perspective. We may not be able to maintain the level of human progress or even regress sharply in our living standards when there are drastically fewer people.
To get an impression of what this looks like, look at what happened after major catastrophes in human history: the collapse of the Roman Empire, the plague that eradicated large swaths of Europe’s population in the Middle Ages, etc. It regularly took centuries for humanity to recover from these events.
- hotpotamus 3y agoIf there is a collapse (and I suspect it will be due to climate change rather than fertility issues and much sooner than people seem to think), humanity will never recover to what it is today, not only because of the severe bottlenecks they will go through, but because all the easily exploitable resources will have already been used in the 20th and 21st centuries. I don’t understand why no one seems bothered by this, but I am also trying to adopt the attitude of “getting my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames” to quote Jim Morrison. Of course, that means no children for me.