5 ms·

> I believe that overpopulation is the root of the sustainability crisis This has been studied long time ago by scientists such as Alfred Sauvy [1], who conclu

> I believe that overpopulation is the root of the sustainability crisis This has been studied long time ago by scientists such as Alfred Sauvy [1], who concluded that overpopulation is not the cause of sustainability crisis, and that greenhouse gas is the major cause. In particular, limiting the growth of population has few impact on the production of greenhouse gas, whereas changing the means of energy production and consumption is much more impactful. Moreover the world population is expected to be less than 12 billions in 2100 [2], which is plainly sustainable. This is mostly due to the demographic transition, a pattern observed in most countries, where the fertility rates decrease over time. More specifically I recommend the excellent book of Emmanuel Todd and Youssef Courbage on this subject [3]. The authors argue that in most countries throughout history, when both the majority of men and the majority of women know how to read and write, then the fertility rate decreases, and a revolution becomes imminent. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Sauvy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Sauvy [2]: https://www.un.org/en/desa/world-population-projected-reach-98-billion-2050-and-112-billion-2100 https://www.un.org/en/desa/world-population-projected-reach-... [3]: https://cup.columbia.edu/book/a-convergence-of-civilizations/9780231150033 https://cup.columbia.edu/book/a-convergence-of-civilizations...

lozenge 3y ago
Sustainable means different things to different people. In a simulator, could you have 12 billion people with their needs met, living fulfilled lives and continuing into the far future? Yes. Is there a political and practical way to reach that state? No. "One study estimates it would take just over 5 Earths to support the human population if everyone’s consumption patterns were similar to the average American." Any US government that tried to bring America's environmental footprint down to a sustainable or fair level would be voted out. It doesn't matter whether it would be gas taxes, meat taxes, per mile taxes, flight taxes, carbon tax and dividend, building renewable energy in less developed countries, or any other scheme. It doesn't matter if it was targeted at the ultra rich or the middle class. The sheer scale of it would cause Americans to vote out the government. And the same is true for any democracy and plenty of the non-democracies too.
- acidioxide 3y ago
  We don't need another tax to make another commodity available only to the richest, but a change in culture that above all prioritizes consumption.
- graphe 3y ago
  I'm not sure why they think Americans are a good standard of living. If we want people to be 30+ percent obese, unhappy with dating and the stuff we ordered to have shipped yesterday. There's programs to give efficient LEDs from comed to people for changing it slowly.
  - quickthrower2 3y ago
    People can get a good standard of living by exercising more but habit forming is hard and people can be very short termist and sheep like. Sheep like can be a positive thing too though (in a more health obsessed city you might encourage others).
- timschmidt 3y ago
  Earth receives more solar energy in an hour than human civilization uses in a year. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy We're not even vertically farming at scale yet. There's a lot of room left for densifying human civilization. Seems like 10x should be achievable.
  - defrost 3y ago
    > There's a lot of room left for densifying human civilization. Seems like 10x should be achievable. Why? Why isn't 8 billion enough? Is there a plastic ring prize if we hit 80 billion? Or are you talking about squeezing the 8 billion we have now closer together?
    - timschmidt 3y ago
      People have children for lots of reasons. I'm probably not qualified to list them all, but I expect that people will not stop any time soon. Seems that they enjoy the process. Perhaps consider that those 80 billion souls will contain Einsteins and Mozarts.
magicalhippo 3y ago
> which is plainly sustainable Plainly sustainable without fossil fuels? From what I can gather, the majority of farming, construction and transportation (including of farmed goods) relies heavily on fossil fuels.
127361 3y ago
It's not sustainable because the more people they are, the worse their living conditions will be. Look at how densely populated Asia is. Does everyone want to live like this? Overcrowding is also not good for our mental health.

lozenge 3y ago

Sustainable means different things to different people. In a simulator, could you have 12 billion people with their needs met, living fulfilled lives and continuing into the far future? Yes. Is there a political and practical way to reach that state? No. "One study estimates it would take just over 5 Earths to support the human population if everyone’s consumption patterns were similar to the average American." Any US government that tried to bring America's environmental footprint down to a sustainable or fair level would be voted out. It doesn't matter whether it would be gas taxes, meat taxes, per mile taxes, flight taxes, carbon tax and dividend, building renewable energy in less developed countries, or any other scheme. It doesn't matter if it was targeted at the ultra rich or the middle class. The sheer scale of it would cause Americans to vote out the government. And the same is true for any democracy and plenty of the non-democracies too.

acidioxide 3y ago
We don't need another tax to make another commodity available only to the richest, but a change in culture that above all prioritizes consumption.
graphe 3y ago
I'm not sure why they think Americans are a good standard of living. If we want people to be 30+ percent obese, unhappy with dating and the stuff we ordered to have shipped yesterday. There's programs to give efficient LEDs from comed to people for changing it slowly.
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  People can get a good standard of living by exercising more but habit forming is hard and people can be very short termist and sheep like. Sheep like can be a positive thing too though (in a more health obsessed city you might encourage others).
timschmidt 3y ago
Earth receives more solar energy in an hour than human civilization uses in a year. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy We're not even vertically farming at scale yet. There's a lot of room left for densifying human civilization. Seems like 10x should be achievable.
- defrost 3y ago
  > There's a lot of room left for densifying human civilization. Seems like 10x should be achievable. Why? Why isn't 8 billion enough? Is there a plastic ring prize if we hit 80 billion? Or are you talking about squeezing the 8 billion we have now closer together?
  - timschmidt 3y ago
    People have children for lots of reasons. I'm probably not qualified to list them all, but I expect that people will not stop any time soon. Seems that they enjoy the process. Perhaps consider that those 80 billion souls will contain Einsteins and Mozarts.

magicalhippo 3y ago

> which is plainly sustainable Plainly sustainable without fossil fuels? From what I can gather, the majority of farming, construction and transportation (including of farmed goods) relies heavily on fossil fuels.

127361 3y ago

It's not sustainable because the more people they are, the worse their living conditions will be. Look at how densely populated Asia is. Does everyone want to live like this? Overcrowding is also not good for our mental health.