5 ms·

I don't think you're up to date with current population trends, it's about to peak in the next decades

wkat4242 3y ago
But that's good! Let it peak, drop a bit, and stabilise around 2 billion or so. That would be perfect for long-term sustainability. We've seen the same here in Europe. My parents' generation usually had large families, my generation had mostly 1-2 kids, and these days many families have no kids. Of course poorer countries and countries that are still very religious are a bit behind but they will catch up too. Humanity won't go extinct, there will always be people happy to have children.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Honest questions: Can we maintain our current tech level with 2 billion people? And if we can't, is that fair to future generations? Aren't we condemning them to a more miserable life? (On the other hand, if 8 billion people leads to destroying the environment, that also leaves them more miserable...)
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    Of course we can. Even with a lot less. We can automate the hell out of everything :) In fact there's a big concern that there won't be enough work. Even hypercapitalist countries like the US are thinking about UBI now. Food will be a bigger problem but less people also means less food needed.
    - lm28469 3y ago
      > We can automate the hell out of everything :) That's what they told us in the 60s/70s/80s and we're still working as much while our standards are lowering but ok, we'll automagically fix things, we're just waiting for the right time
      - seec 3y ago
        Standards are lowering precisely because there are too many people chasing the same ressources... You can't share everything beyond a certain point. The boomerism view of infinite growth is incredibly stupid especially if you start evaluating material requirement for a standard rich boomer lifestyle. The only reason we could have so many people on the planet at once is because almost half of them live in poverty, close to animal standard with some human technology sprinkled in some place... It's just shortsighted to believe that having so many people was sustainable in the first place.
- lm28469 3y ago
  > That would be perfect for long-term sustainability. I guess if you don't care about your country or continent legacy that could work yes
  - prmoustache 3y ago
    My country and continent's legacies are the exploitation and misery of people from other continents so I am fine with that.
    - lm28469 3y ago
      Remove your doomer glasses and be a bit more objective in assessing your countries achievements. Listening to your kind of folk you'd wonder why people risk their lives to migrate here if it was such a hellscape. Some countries are doing what yours did 3 generations ago right now and they don't have a tenth of your inherited guilt, nor a tenth of the media presence
prmoustache 3y ago
Up until now it has been growing. What you call "peak in the next decades" are just UN projections. And that position can still be reassessed in the next 30 years. I am still not convinced that a globally aging population is a big issue in the long term.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Me neither. China is facing the same thing and we have the boomers getting old. Such a phase sucks but it's temporary. Eventually the wave of old people is gone and things are back to normal. It's not something we can't overcome.
  - lm28469 3y ago
    > Eventually the wave of old people is gone and things are back to normal. It's not something we can't overcome. What do you mean by back to normal ? The African demographic boom, even if we didn't have our own fertility problem, will ensure there will be no back to "normal". History is never about going back to normal
- lm28469 3y ago
  It mostly depends on what you care about. If you care about excel sheets and mathematical formulas then of course none of it matters in the long term If you care about quality of life, employment, pensions, shortages, smooth transitions, immigration, it's a whole other story

But that's good! Let it peak, drop a bit, and stabilise around 2 billion or so. That would be perfect for long-term sustainability. We've seen the same here in Europe. My parents' generation usually had large families, my generation had mostly 1-2 kids, and these days many families have no kids. Of course poorer countries and countries that are still very religious are a bit behind but they will catch up too. Humanity won't go extinct, there will always be people happy to have children.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Honest questions: Can we maintain our current tech level with 2 billion people? And if we can't, is that fair to future generations? Aren't we condemning them to a more miserable life? (On the other hand, if 8 billion people leads to destroying the environment, that also leaves them more miserable...)
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Of course we can. Even with a lot less. We can automate the hell out of everything :) In fact there's a big concern that there won't be enough work. Even hypercapitalist countries like the US are thinking about UBI now. Food will be a bigger problem but less people also means less food needed.
  - lm28469 3y ago
    > We can automate the hell out of everything :) That's what they told us in the 60s/70s/80s and we're still working as much while our standards are lowering but ok, we'll automagically fix things, we're just waiting for the right time
    - seec 3y ago
      Standards are lowering precisely because there are too many people chasing the same ressources... You can't share everything beyond a certain point. The boomerism view of infinite growth is incredibly stupid especially if you start evaluating material requirement for a standard rich boomer lifestyle. The only reason we could have so many people on the planet at once is because almost half of them live in poverty, close to animal standard with some human technology sprinkled in some place... It's just shortsighted to believe that having so many people was sustainable in the first place.
lm28469 3y ago
> That would be perfect for long-term sustainability. I guess if you don't care about your country or continent legacy that could work yes
- prmoustache 3y ago
  My country and continent's legacies are the exploitation and misery of people from other continents so I am fine with that.
  - lm28469 3y ago
    Remove your doomer glasses and be a bit more objective in assessing your countries achievements. Listening to your kind of folk you'd wonder why people risk their lives to migrate here if it was such a hellscape. Some countries are doing what yours did 3 generations ago right now and they don't have a tenth of your inherited guilt, nor a tenth of the media presence

prmoustache 3y ago

Up until now it has been growing. What you call "peak in the next decades" are just UN projections. And that position can still be reassessed in the next 30 years. I am still not convinced that a globally aging population is a big issue in the long term.

wkat4242 3y ago
Me neither. China is facing the same thing and we have the boomers getting old. Such a phase sucks but it's temporary. Eventually the wave of old people is gone and things are back to normal. It's not something we can't overcome.
- lm28469 3y ago
  > Eventually the wave of old people is gone and things are back to normal. It's not something we can't overcome. What do you mean by back to normal ? The African demographic boom, even if we didn't have our own fertility problem, will ensure there will be no back to "normal". History is never about going back to normal
lm28469 3y ago
It mostly depends on what you care about. If you care about excel sheets and mathematical formulas then of course none of it matters in the long term If you care about quality of life, employment, pensions, shortages, smooth transitions, immigration, it's a whole other story