6 ms·
Absolutely (note I referred to gradual change) And you are right - but poor people _want_ to have material luxuries, by and large, so we should consider what w
by CalRobert 1y ago
Absolutely (note I referred to gradual change)
And you are right - but poor people _want_ to have material luxuries, by and large, so we should consider what we want our equilibrium state to look like.
Personally, I'm hoping for "8-10 billion people eating low meat diets, living in well insulated homes powered by renewable electricity, in places where they can walk, bike, or take public transport for almost all of their daily needs, and working a 20 hour (or less) week, with the remainder of their time filled with their friends, families, creative passions, and any other joys not yet comprehended"
but it doesn't seem like that's where we're headed.
- 123yawaworht456 1y agobecause people who want "eating low meat diets" and "walk, bike, or take public transport" go extinct first.
- CalRobert 1y agoWhy? (I speak as someone who fits that description and has kids)
- csa 1y ago> Why? (I speak as someone who fits that description and has kids) I’m not the original commenter, but I assume that the reference is that this/your group fairly reliably across most cultures does not maintain the 2.1 children per woman birth rate / replacement rate needed to sustain a population. At a minimum, this seems to be true for this particular socioeconomic class in most parts of Europe, East Asia, and US/Canada. Not sure about South Asia.
- dwaltrip 1y agoDoesn’t make sense. All groups are trending towards sub-replacement fertility. Even the mormons.
- votepaunchy 1y agoIsrael has a TFR of 2.9, which has held steady for 40 years.