3 ms·
I'm reading Stewart Brand's book "Whole Earth Discipline" right now [1]. Prior to reading the book, I would have had a similar assumption. Turns out that popul
by gdubs 12y ago
I'm reading Stewart Brand's book "Whole Earth Discipline" right now [1]. Prior to reading the book, I would have had a similar assumption.
Turns out that population collapse is potentially very dangerous to the environment. Why? Because a rapid collapse in population would cause economic distress and wars over resources. During economic crisis, environmental conservation tends to (unfortunately) go out the window. And war is devastating for the environment.
Anyway, Brand says the world population requires something like 2.1 kids per person to avoid a collapse in population, but is falling below that in many countries. The green movement of the 1960's was very effective at lowering population growth, averting a potential 'population bomb' that was so feared at the time.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Earth_Discipline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Earth_Discipline
- anindyabd 12y agoI don't understand. Why would a collapse in population cause wars over resources? If there are less people, shouldn't that mean that there will be more resources to go around for everyone?
- gdubs 12y agoIf the population collapse wasn't economically devastating than this would be true. But, according to the book, lower fertility rates result in an aging population that becomes an economic liability -- especially if it happens rapidly. In an economic crisis, resources become constrained even if there are technically plenty to go around. I'm sure there are examples of this in America's Great Depression. I'm not by any means an expert in this area -- just doing the best I can to paraphrase what so far has been a very interesting and paradigm shattering book.