11 ms·

Comparing the Climate and Productivity Impacts of a Shrinking Population

Gustomaximus 1y ago
Was a long article and only skim read, but wouldn't a bigger factor be rising living standards? As more of the world moves to developed world living standards, which would be ideal, if this shift is faster than green technology + depopulation we are going to see increased climate pressure. I didn't seem them mention this but my inexpert view seems the rising tide of living standards may present the real problem.
- pixelfarmer 1y ago
  I haven't read the actual paper, but alone from the abstract many questions come up. Personally, I doubt the any "near" to "mid" term population decline will have larger effects on the climate change we are seeing. It is just too slow. Meaning that we certainly get (much!) larger effects about climate change done with other stuff, no doubt about that. However, using that as an inverse argument to foster population growth is a stupid idea, because more people means more resources needed for everything, starting with food and water, climate change resistant shelter, and all the other stuff that is needed for actual living. All of that isn't created out of thin air. Considering that there is increased pressure just to provide food and water already (climate change anyone?!), the lower the population in the long run is, the better. Also, food supply destroys a lot of our environment, alone the meat industry is a planet wide killer because of that. If I add all this up, population decline is a good thing. And if I read something like "Meanwhile, a smaller population slows the non-rival innovation that powers improvements in long-run productivity and living standards" I start to question the sanity of the people writing something like that.
  - willvarfar 1y ago
    World population is still growing; the classic Hans Rosling TED talk is awesome https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_global_population_growth_box_by_box https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_global_population_gro... Most countries in the global north (who happen to be the big contributors to climate change) are facing an aging and declining population. Many of those countries over the last few decades have been steadily outsourcing manufacturing abroad and other things that shift where the pollution happens and gets accounted. Over the last decade or so in response to public pressure many of their governments have been pursuing national green policies that really further offshore their contribution to climate change rather than reduce it. Its a kind of frustrating greenwashing that isn't what the voters imagine is happening. Cue rant.
    - p2detar 1y ago
      > many of their governments have been pursuing national green policies that really further offshore their contribution to climate change rather than reduce it That’s my view as well but if I voice it to friends and acquaintances in Western Europe I get angry faces looking back at me. All this talk about green policies whilst electronics waste is burned in Pakistan and India or China dumps huge amount of chemical waste in order to produce the resources for phones and gadgets. Go figure.
    - DrScientist 1y ago
      Indeed - people in the West tutting while reading stories on their smart phone about large scale environmental damage due to rare earth mining in China.... For all the talk of net zero the rate of emissions is still going up - ie year on year we are pumping out more than we did the last.
bjornsing 1y ago
Our ability to adapt to a changing climate without too much human suffering should radically increase with a shrinking world population though. In general I think too much emphasis is placed on trying to preserve the current climate as is, and too little on trying to make this planet a good place to live for generations to come. The climate changes over time, that’s just how it is. The climate changes we are seeing now are not extraordinary when viewed over the course of the Earth’s history. The current climate has no intrinsic value and will be long gone in a billion years, regardless of what we do.
- skywal_l 1y ago
  obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
- simmerup 1y ago
  > The climate changes we are seeing now are not extraordinary when viewed over the course of the Earth’s history You realise of course for most of earths history earth was inhospitable to humans
- padjo 1y ago
  > The current climate has no intrinsic value Correct, that’s backwards, all value derives from the current climate.
- oulipo 1y ago
  I guess you don't have any knowledge about climate... the issue is not that the climate can be particularly similar to a given one eons ago, the issue is that the speed at which it happens makes it so that no plant or animal can adapt to it through evolution, and we face extinction
- jay_kyburz 1y ago
  This is not what you said exactly, but I agree that the only future for humans is living in an environment that we create and manage for ourselves. Whether that's on a planetary scale, small orbitals, or underground bunkers. We had better get a move on, large scale crop failure could destroy civilization as we know it, and I'd much rather my children live in a utopian garden of Eden rather than some dank dungeon eating cockroaches and algae.
aaron695 1y ago
[dead]
skeezyboy 1y ago
obviously nature is broken. it has a correct climate and weve mucked that all up with our god damn PCPs

Was a long article and only skim read, but wouldn't a bigger factor be rising living standards? As more of the world moves to developed world living standards, which would be ideal, if this shift is faster than green technology + depopulation we are going to see increased climate pressure. I didn't seem them mention this but my inexpert view seems the rising tide of living standards may present the real problem.

pixelfarmer 1y ago
I haven't read the actual paper, but alone from the abstract many questions come up. Personally, I doubt the any "near" to "mid" term population decline will have larger effects on the climate change we are seeing. It is just too slow. Meaning that we certainly get (much!) larger effects about climate change done with other stuff, no doubt about that. However, using that as an inverse argument to foster population growth is a stupid idea, because more people means more resources needed for everything, starting with food and water, climate change resistant shelter, and all the other stuff that is needed for actual living. All of that isn't created out of thin air. Considering that there is increased pressure just to provide food and water already (climate change anyone?!), the lower the population in the long run is, the better. Also, food supply destroys a lot of our environment, alone the meat industry is a planet wide killer because of that. If I add all this up, population decline is a good thing. And if I read something like "Meanwhile, a smaller population slows the non-rival innovation that powers improvements in long-run productivity and living standards" I start to question the sanity of the people writing something like that.
- willvarfar 1y ago
  World population is still growing; the classic Hans Rosling TED talk is awesome https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_global_population_growth_box_by_box https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_global_population_gro... Most countries in the global north (who happen to be the big contributors to climate change) are facing an aging and declining population. Many of those countries over the last few decades have been steadily outsourcing manufacturing abroad and other things that shift where the pollution happens and gets accounted. Over the last decade or so in response to public pressure many of their governments have been pursuing national green policies that really further offshore their contribution to climate change rather than reduce it. Its a kind of frustrating greenwashing that isn't what the voters imagine is happening. Cue rant.
  - p2detar 1y ago
    > many of their governments have been pursuing national green policies that really further offshore their contribution to climate change rather than reduce it That’s my view as well but if I voice it to friends and acquaintances in Western Europe I get angry faces looking back at me. All this talk about green policies whilst electronics waste is burned in Pakistan and India or China dumps huge amount of chemical waste in order to produce the resources for phones and gadgets. Go figure.
  - DrScientist 1y ago
    Indeed - people in the West tutting while reading stories on their smart phone about large scale environmental damage due to rare earth mining in China.... For all the talk of net zero the rate of emissions is still going up - ie year on year we are pumping out more than we did the last.

bjornsing 1y ago

Our ability to adapt to a changing climate without too much human suffering should radically increase with a shrinking world population though. In general I think too much emphasis is placed on trying to preserve the current climate as is, and too little on trying to make this planet a good place to live for generations to come. The climate changes over time, that’s just how it is. The climate changes we are seeing now are not extraordinary when viewed over the course of the Earth’s history. The current climate has no intrinsic value and will be long gone in a billion years, regardless of what we do.

skywal_l 1y ago
obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
simmerup 1y ago
> The climate changes we are seeing now are not extraordinary when viewed over the course of the Earth’s history You realise of course for most of earths history earth was inhospitable to humans
padjo 1y ago
> The current climate has no intrinsic value Correct, that’s backwards, all value derives from the current climate.
oulipo 1y ago
I guess you don't have any knowledge about climate... the issue is not that the climate can be particularly similar to a given one eons ago, the issue is that the speed at which it happens makes it so that no plant or animal can adapt to it through evolution, and we face extinction
jay_kyburz 1y ago
This is not what you said exactly, but I agree that the only future for humans is living in an environment that we create and manage for ourselves. Whether that's on a planetary scale, small orbitals, or underground bunkers. We had better get a move on, large scale crop failure could destroy civilization as we know it, and I'd much rather my children live in a utopian garden of Eden rather than some dank dungeon eating cockroaches and algae.

aaron695 1y ago

[dead]

skeezyboy 1y ago

obviously nature is broken. it has a correct climate and weve mucked that all up with our god damn PCPs