3 ms·

A declining birth rate is a different problem to a declining population. The population pyramid becomes inverted with huge numbers of economically inactive ret

A declining birth rate is a different problem to a declining population. The population pyramid becomes inverted with huge numbers of economically inactive retirees dependant on ever fewer numbers of working age people to care for them. Politics becomes hyper conservative as the young liberal voter base shrinks ever smaller. Military strength falls because the number of potential soldiers declines.

mytailorisrich 2y ago
Yes. On the other hand the global population boom is a recent phenomenon on historical terms (it started in the 20th century) and is the main cause of our current environmental problems. Thus, arguably a lower population is the best long term solution for a sustainable human presence on this planet while maintaining or expanding living standards, but indeed this comes with big challenges (which governments and obviously business interests do not want to face).
- spacebanana7 2y ago
  > is the main cause of our current environmental problems. I don't fully agree with this. Would you rather live on a planet with a population of 5 billion that primarily used coal energy and meat food? or a planet of 10 billion that primarily consisted of renewable energy and vegetarianism? My concern is more economic and social. With high population levels it seems too much wealth and power goes to the holders of land and natural resources. The Gulf state monarchs and London landlords being the 20th century manifestations of this.
  - mytailorisrich 2y ago
    I'd rather live on a planet where people are free to eat what they want, free to travel as they wish and see the world, free to live in a house with a large garden, free to enjoy life and the planet. Renewable energy, at least low-zero emission energy, will take over in any case but emissions are only one issue. Our negative impact on the environment goes far beyond that and it is driven by population.

mytailorisrich 2y ago

Yes. On the other hand the global population boom is a recent phenomenon on historical terms (it started in the 20th century) and is the main cause of our current environmental problems. Thus, arguably a lower population is the best long term solution for a sustainable human presence on this planet while maintaining or expanding living standards, but indeed this comes with big challenges (which governments and obviously business interests do not want to face).

spacebanana7 2y ago
> is the main cause of our current environmental problems. I don't fully agree with this. Would you rather live on a planet with a population of 5 billion that primarily used coal energy and meat food? or a planet of 10 billion that primarily consisted of renewable energy and vegetarianism? My concern is more economic and social. With high population levels it seems too much wealth and power goes to the holders of land and natural resources. The Gulf state monarchs and London landlords being the 20th century manifestations of this.
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  I'd rather live on a planet where people are free to eat what they want, free to travel as they wish and see the world, free to live in a house with a large garden, free to enjoy life and the planet. Renewable energy, at least low-zero emission energy, will take over in any case but emissions are only one issue. Our negative impact on the environment goes far beyond that and it is driven by population.