3 ms·
Slightly fewer is good. A rate of around 1.8 kids per woman seems slow but it's an exponential so it's still quite significant. Parts of the world have reache
by bryanlarsen 4mo ago
Slightly fewer is good. A rate of around 1.8 kids per woman seems slow but it's an exponential so it's still quite significant.
Parts of the world have reached 1.0 kids per woman, which is a halving of the population per generation, which will put a massive strain on our resources
- Windchaser 4mo ago> which will put a massive strain on our resources True, but again, scientists are saying that we're already putting massive strain on our ecological resources, and the strain is only increasing. Not just climate change, but ocean acidification, modification of biogeochemical balances, habitat destruction, etc. We are at genuine risk of accidentally wrecking the ecosystems we depend on. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458
- bryanlarsen 4mo agoPopulation degrowth may do more harm than good. One billionaire with a private jet does more harm than thousands.
- derdi 4mo agoCan you expand on the harm of degrowth? I usually see it framed in terms of "our state retirement system is an obvious pyramid scheme that is about to collapse, we need to keep the scam going as long as we can". Are there better reasons to worry?