We’ve already lucked into a solution to the population boom, the numbers will level off around 10 billion. Given how intractable population control is, we’re very lucky we’ve found this without some dystopian shitshow.
In the developed world we are approaching the opposite problem, we’re currently dependant on immigration to maintain our societies, but as the rest of the world stops growing we’ll have more trouble getting that immigration and won’t have the local young population to care for our elderly.
Given that we should be trying to figure out how to encourage a sustainable population whilst we still have time to do so. If we can choose between 1.9->2.2 children per couple as needed then we’ll be in a healthy position to slowly reduce the population to a comfortable level.
Right now our natural population decline in the developed world is too fast, probably because our society has made being a parent quite an individual burden. Of course, totally moving the costs to a societal model would be a disaster, but presumably there’s a middle ground where people are comfortable keeping the society going at a healthy rate.
Yes, I generally agree. I can’t help but note that we aren’t expected to hit peak population for a long time. There’s a good chance we’ll both be underground by the time it happens.
Meanwhile, many of the key metrics we use to monitor the environment have already been indicating irreversible damage for decades.
You’re putting up optimistic hypothetical consumption scenarios against an ongoing global mass extinction, climate change, and environmental degradation caused by our actual real world consumption
I get all of that, I also understand that we literally have no choice but to change how we live because it’s completely unsustainable.
Ignoring the fact that the Earth is already way over populated isn’t helping anything.
We’ve already lucked into a solution to the population boom, the numbers will level off around 10 billion. Given how intractable population control is, we’re very lucky we’ve found this without some dystopian shitshow.
In the developed world we are approaching the opposite problem, we’re currently dependant on immigration to maintain our societies, but as the rest of the world stops growing we’ll have more trouble getting that immigration and won’t have the local young population to care for our elderly.
Given that we should be trying to figure out how to encourage a sustainable population whilst we still have time to do so. If we can choose between 1.9->2.2 children per couple as needed then we’ll be in a healthy position to slowly reduce the population to a comfortable level.
Right now our natural population decline in the developed world is too fast, probably because our society has made being a parent quite an individual burden. Of course, totally moving the costs to a societal model would be a disaster, but presumably there’s a middle ground where people are comfortable keeping the society going at a healthy rate.
Yes, I generally agree. I can’t help but note that we aren’t expected to hit peak population for a long time. There’s a good chance we’ll both be underground by the time it happens.
Meanwhile, many of the key metrics we use to monitor the environment have already been indicating irreversible damage for decades.
My point was more about your attitude towards parental leave.
But it is not actually a dact thar trhe earth is over populated. How we live is more an issue then the numbers.
Any science on the autual numbers earth can support leaves us with a few bln to go.
But that science doselt allow for capatalism.
You’re putting up optimistic hypothetical consumption scenarios against an ongoing global mass extinction, climate change, and environmental degradation caused by our actual real world consumption
As opposed to controlling a mammals desire to breed?
It not like either solution is easier.