51–60 of 280 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's either middle class people consuming huge amounts of resources per person, or it's subsistence dwellers cranking out 5 kids for every fertile woman.
Then we should find the optimal point of socio-economic development with regards to co2 emissions? Or is upward mobility impossible to remove from the system?
There are way more people on Earth than Earth can sustain in what we consider a life worth living. As bloodthirsty capitalism pulls more and more people out of poverty we discover that putting a steak on everyone's table and a fresh car in everyone's garage is too taxing on the atmosphere, wildlife, forests and what not. We seem to have to choose between a smaller luxurious population and billions and billions of peo…
The problem is the constant expansion (which comes with warfare and extreme waste) that capitalism mandates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A quick googling suggests that Bangladesh's current fertility rate is around 2 births per woman, which is actually just under replacement rate. The birth rate across the globe has been steadily on the decline for some time, there aren't many more places left where rapid doublings are still possible.
Sure, but I’d argue that the replacement rate itself is at an unsustainable level. Climate change and the loss of species and such is one manifestation of overpopulation. Covid-19 could be viewed as another, in my opinion. Obviously this is all rich coming from an American living in the suburbs (I don’t really see what my alternatives are), but I can’t help but think we can only sustain around a billion people withou…
...I don't know what that even means. Or do you just mean, "we already have too many people, the population needs to go down"?
Probably the biggest thing you could do, I'd say, would be to politically support pro-environment measures. There's a lot of "yes, but..." Americans who only support 'green' regulations and whatnot when it will not cause the slightest inconvenience to them. E.g.
"Yes I support bike lanes, but this +0.25% sales tax increase to build them is just too much, taxes are already too high."
"Yes I support mass transit, but I don't support redirecting any money from roads for cars to them because I drive a lot."
"Yes I support higher density housing, but I don't want to hurt my neighborhood's character."
You get the picture. From a practical perspective, America would easily make strong progress on reduced energy consumption, but the political will there is weak.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This combination of forces would lead inexorably to famine, unchecked migration, conflict and other calamities. ... and.. it does ? https://www.worldvision.org/refugees-news-stories
The top 7 regions creating refugees are Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Myanmar, Somalia or Democratic Republic of Congo. None of them do so due to overpopulation, or even environmental or ecological crisis. They're all political issues.
... where do you think these political issues come from ?
"The myth, as is commonly told, tells the story of a mid-twentieth century world headed for disaster. There were too many people being born and not enough food being produced. This combination of forces would lead inexorably to famine, unchecked migration, conflict and other calamities. However, thanks to the inventiveness of Western scientists more food was produced, Armageddon was avoided, and the world did not exp…
Industrialization, not population is to blame. Maybe we have an industrialization crisis. But it's difficult to blame that on "developing nations" so it probably won't get much press.
Then again, things like the Paris Agreement provide incentives to move polluting industry to China, so nationalist anti-Chinese media may eventually lay the blame on industrialization.
Now take in account the ecosystems destroyed and the picture is very different. We must leave behind the humans-only perspective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but I’d argue that the replacement rate itself is at an unsustainable level. Climate change and the loss of species and such is one manifestation of overpopulation. Covid-19 could be viewed as another, in my opinion. Obviously this is all rich coming from an American living in the suburbs (I don’t really see what my alternatives are), but I can’t help but think we can only sustain around a billion people withou…
> Sure, but I’d argue that the replacement rate itself is at an unsustainable level. ...I don't know what that even means. Or do you just mean, "we already have too many people, the population needs to go down"? Probably the biggest thing you could do, I'd say, would be to politically support pro-environment measures. There's a lot of "yes, but..." Americans who only support 'green' regulations and whatnot when it wi…
Hey there. Sorry for the poor choice of words. That's pretty much what I mean. I see comments where people mention a replacement rate for a country, and that maybe a country might be just at or slightly below the replacement rate. I believe that even at current levels we're far and away in excess of where we should be. So... when someone says "but Country N is now at the replacement rate" - I just think that the population at that level is beyond where it should be.
> You get the picture. From a practical perspective, America would easily make strong progress on reduced energy consumption, but the political will there is weak.
Completely agree, and include myself as one who is guilty here (to some extent). I try to minimize a lot of things, but ultimately it's hard when the environment we live in itself is very geared toward doing the opposite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A quick googling suggests that Bangladesh's current fertility rate is around 2 births per woman, which is actually just under replacement rate. The birth rate across the globe has been steadily on the decline for some time, there aren't many more places left where rapid doublings are still possible.
There's almost nowhere in Asia with high fertility anymore. All 21st century population growth will be African, specifically sub-Saharan Africa, where fertility rates are stubbornly holding around 4 to 4.5 births per woman. And the worst countries, like Somalia and Niger, are still well above 6 births per woman, declining by much less than 1 birth per woman per decade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The top 7 regions creating refugees are Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Myanmar, Somalia or Democratic Republic of Congo. None of them do so due to overpopulation, or even environmental or ecological crisis. They're all political issues.
South-eastern Mediterranean situation was caused by repeating drought since 2006 collapsing their agricultural production. A drought in 2010 in Russia reduced their grain production by 30% and doubled the price of grain during the winter 2010-2011: it was basically a death sentence to already famished people in some African countries (Centrafrique, but also Sudan at the time), but what wasn't expected was the price o…
>What do you think these countries have in common?
Terrible authoritarian governments that buy off its impoverished populaces with a mirage of huge food subsidies, while stealing most of the wealth of their nations for themselves.