4 ms·
I think it's more humane to improve sustainability by lowering birth rates, rather than letting existing people starve to death/die of sickness en masse. You ar
by austinz 13y ago
I think it's more humane to improve sustainability by lowering birth rates, rather than letting existing people starve to death/die of sickness en masse. You argue that improving people's lives is only postponing the inevitable. I disagree, because the things Gates wants to do can facilitate economic development and provide a natural check on population growth.
As countries grow richer birthrates tend to trend downwards, for a variety of reasons. The one country that actually took population growth seriously and tried doing something about it (China) continues to get shit over its policies today (sometimes for good reason). Just providing people in developing countries with access to contraception ignores many of the reasons that people in those countries choose to have large families.
Finally, I've read that UCSD guy's blog, and while I respect his expertise, I can't get over the fact that his analysis often seems to rest upon rather shaky assumptions. For example, one of the blog posts he links to ("Galactic-Scale Energy") argues that exponential growth means that even a modest ~2% growth rate, sustained into the far future, would result in humanity needing to consume ludicrous amounts of energy. The math is sound, but the assumption is that the human population will also continue increasing exponentially (e.g. 1%), meaning that economic output continues to be divided among the current populace at a rate that is not necessarily exponential. However, if population growth really is slowing down (as statistics show [0]), then 2% growth into the far future with a constant or slowly increasing population results in a ludicrous amount of economic output available on a per-capita basis. The author's point is that unchecked growth is a bad thing; I don't think unchecked economic growth is even meaningful in the context of a population that is no longer increasing. Many of his other posts contain similar 'spherical cow' assumptions meant to make his mathematical models more appealing in terms of presenting his overall message.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_growth_rate_1950%E2%80%932050.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_growth_ra..., data from US Census Bureau.
- novalis78 13y agoWhy does everybody want to lower birthrates? We need to settle the solar system, not wait until the next ice age or meteor mass extinction in an "environmentally friendly" mode of existance...
- maxerickson 13y agoHow many billions of people do you think we need to solve the rocket problem?
- novalis78 13y agoIt will add to the pressure of directing larger percentage of GDP or indirectly, serve as incentive for companies to make profit, to solve this problem. I am more concerned about a high birthrate in countries with religious fanaticism and lack of education than a high birthrate in general. Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt will need billions of people more.
- xradionut 13y agoOuter space is very expensive and extremely hard to do right and safely.
- brianobush 13y agoYes, it is currently. However, we need to innovate to change that and I believe we can!
- robotomir 13y agoIt is naive and stupid to believe we will ever be able to export excessive population to Earth orbit and beyond. It is naive and stupid to state that overpopulation increases the chances of a species' survival.
- rsheridan6 13y agoThat's not going to solve overpopulation problems here, because it would be cheaper to feed someone for life (ie it would require less energy) than it would be to send that person outside of Earth's gravitational field.
- pdonis 13y agoit would be cheaper to feed someone for life (ie it would require less energy) than it would be to send that person outside of Earth's gravitational field. Please show your work.
- collyw 13y agoLower birth rates is one thing, but lets sort out the fucking inequality first. People have more children in Africa, because they expect to loose some and because they will help out (be economically active). Both those could be solved by better distribution of wealth, an an accompanying does of education. A child born in the west will consume vast amounts more resources than multiple children born in poverty.
- specialist 13y agoAddressing inequity is precisely the strategy to reducing population growth. Empowering women, with education, economic freedom, and reproductive choice, is the Correct Answer. Fortunately, much progress has been made and will continue.