> 69 days to save the earth: ... hovering over all of these is whether the US will play its role in helping take collective responsibility for the future of the planet.
Looks like a scenario for a movie with Bruce Willis.
But although population growth in low-impact poorer nations has a small impact today, those peoples will one day (hopefully) be wealthy and high-impact, and at that point we’ll surely wish there weren’t so many.
High-impact wealthy people definitely need to ratchet down their consumption, but why can we not also address overpopulation at the same time?
The point is that there's no future where everyone consumes as much as today's average American. You either:
a) reduce the consumption of the globally wealthy (this includes most Americans)
b) keep the globally impoverished poor to keep their consumption low
c) add in some eugenics and stop the poor people from having more kids with the promise that one day you'll let them consume the same way you already do
You're basically proposing 3, which is asking poor people to voluntarily not have kids so one day they can have what you already have by accident of birth
I'm an American and had a vasectomy and one of the bigger reasons was that I don't want have kids that continue to contribute to the destruction of our planet by just being regular Americans. I felt like it was the biggest single contribution I could make for environmentalism.
I also ride an electric bike, live in the PNW where I use barely any heat or AC, limit meat and dairy intake, and generally just don't buy stuff unless really needed.
Yes. Just because someone is irresponsible and votes for governments that actively work to let these awful things happen doesn't mean they deserve to die from the effects of climate change.
And here is where environmentalism becomes anti-human, and frankly cult like.
Nothing against vasectomies, I’ll probably get one once I have a few kids. But putting the environment before the propagation of our species is unique to us, and I think a sinister thought pattern. Oh well, if enough extreme environmentalists share the same thought, then there will be no more extreme environmentalists.
I’m all for doing our part to reduce greenhouse gases, and pollution. But not at the expense of human life.
First it’s “To save the planet, I won’t have kids”. Next is, “To save the planet, you shouldn’t have kids”
Regardless if you have children or not, the chilling sentiment still exists. My fear is when, inevitably, there is social pressure, if not force, to adhere to similar doctrines on a larger scale.
It's not at the expense of human life if this person's local sacrifice improves global survivability of the species (assuming some people still decide to procreate).
The parent envisions a world where the commons have been destroyed because everyone decided to pursue their self interest.
I'm not sure that's cultish - seems like calculated pragmatism about a limited resource.
My concern isn’t with the local decisions - I agree, if your local sacrifice meets your moral expectations for yourself, and that involves abstaining from reproducing, then have at it.
The danger I see is that, with most movements, once a “critical mass” of support is reached, there tends to be a sentiment of “us vs them”.
Then it’s less about accepting other people’s different beliefs (having x children vs having y or 0 children), and more of shaming/“forcing”/coercing non-believers to your side.
We see this with cancel culture today, and various other movements in recent times.
> if enough extreme environmentalists share the same thought, then there will be no more extreme environmentalists.
Are you suggesting that being an "extreme environmentalist" is an inherited characteristic? Presumably not, because that would be ... eccentric, so what are you suggesting?
> social pressure, if not force
In most developed countries the population is falling or would be falling if it weren't for immigration, and currently that's with a fair amount of government support for human reproduction. If most people agreed that the population should be reduced and government policy were to reflect that opinion then I think the population would continue to fall without the need for anything the slightest bit chilling or oppressive.
However, a minority political or religious movement could interfere with that.
Regarding the first quote, not that it’s necessarily inherited, but if a tenant of an idea or movement is to not procreate, then at some point either no one will be left to procreate, or the only ones left will be those who disagree. Roughly speaking. I agree it’s not as clean of an argument as I thought when writing.
Regarding the second quote, we’ve seen what government policy’s effect is on reproductive limits, such as number of children laws in China (assuming you’re alluding your that, but perhaps not). Obviously there exist other policy options, but I’d rather not have my generation, or someone else’s, be a guinea pig for such policies. Further I don’t think any government should have a right to determine specific axis of child rearing, such as limiting offspring.
So, you're an example of the worst of both worlds.
Regardless of whatever small accommodations you may make, you apparently consume at a first-world level, because "all doing our part" seems to indicate that you're not doing a lot more than those around you, and for the most part we're not doing much. Presumably you want your kids to be able to do the same. You definitely don't sound like you're talking about slashing your or their consumption by say a factor of 5 or 10.
But you also want to have "a few" kids, which usually means 3 or more, which means above replacement level.
You're not just increasing the number of people; you're increasing specifically the number of high consumers.
You can't have both increasing population and increasing per-capita consumption. In fact, you can't get away with increasing either one for the long term without at least reducing the other. And in the still-longer-but-not-that-long term, there's a floor on how far you can reduce consumption and still stay alive.
So at some point you HAVE to stop increasing the population. Or not only does the surrounding world suck, but people simply start starving.
... and people who think the "demographic transition" is going to ride in and save the day are thinking pretty wishfully. It may cause a bobble. It might even get the world 100 years. But in the end, evolution keeps running. There's going to be a heritable tendency to overcome the "demographic transition" factors and reproduce anyway. If that's not artificially stopped, there's going to be a problem.
Space travel is not going to fix this either.
I'm sorry that reality seems anti-human to you, but then the universe has never been obligated to care about humans.
I think people should have kids if they want them. It's a big part of being human and if we can't be human then what's the point. But I think people should be more cognizant of the impact of children and no one ever seems to mention this when discussing environmentalism. I keep this opinion to myself in person because it's not my intention to direct this sentiment at any particular person, and discussing it in person can definitely feel directed.
Have kids. But please be mindful that it has a real impact, and one greater than mostly anything else you can do.
Certainty e) incarnate as somebody else for many lifetimes to come
Rationale: If you acknowledge you are alive and conscious reading this, why would this experience be something unique. Especially if everybody else reports the same?
If not, why keep you alive?
It'd be nice if a no carbon future would be within reach but as far as I know, we do not have the technology to make this happen. Acting as if it's just a matter of time until we do... well, that is nothing short of a high-stakes gamble. Furthermore, we already have too much CO2 in the atmosphere -- even if we'd go no carbon _today_. We will need to actively remove it before we have passed too many ecological tipping points from which there may not be a return to the status quo.
That's only part of the solution. Energy generation makes up ~25% of emissions, agriculture, manufacturing, transport, etc. make up the other 75%. All of these will increase as the 3rd world industrialises.
> We do have the technology. It's called nuclear energy.
No, we do not. Nuclear energy is by no means emission-free.
> There is no such thing as a zero- or close-to-zero emission nuclear power plant. Even existing plants emit due to the continuous mining and refining of uranium needed for the plant. Emissions from new nuclear are 78 to 178 g-CO2/kWh, not close to 0.
-- Mark Z. Jacobson, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University
d) Limit immigration, thus reducing the population (and, according to some, economic growth) of the globally wealthy, that are almost without exception at sub-replacement fertility. No eugenics required.
Most of the nightmarish consumption growth is not from immigration but from formerly developing countries achieving lifestyles and consumption habits similar to developed ones. 3 billion Chinese, Indians, etc. are more than happy to consume large amounts of meat, dairy and drive cars to their AC-controlled homes and jobs without immigrating.
> The point is that there's no future where everyone consumes as much as today's average American. You either:
> a) reduce the consumption of the globally wealthy (this includes most Americans)
> b) keep the globally impoverished poor to keep their consumption low
> c) add in some eugenics and stop the poor people from having more kids with the promise that one day you'll let them consume the same way you already do
I think there is a plausible scenario where wealth becomes even more concentrated such that most Americans join the globally poor (this reduces the number of globally wealthy without reducing their consumption, after which you can assume scenario B). This is more or less the setup for the one-season TV series "Incorporated".
Quote: "The higher the degree of education and GDP per capita of a human population, subpopulation or social stratum, the fewer children are born in any industrialized country"
High-impact wealthy people have also already been limiting their consumption via sub-replacement fertility for at least the last half-century. The only population growth in those countries is from immigration.
It's puzzling how the article can claim that consumption at the rate of wealthy nations is unsustainable, even with their relatively small populations, then propose as the solution to raise a far larger number of people to the same levels of affluence and consumption.
> why can we not also address overpopulation at the same time?
We don't need to.
Overpopulation has already been addressed. Look at the CIA's World Factbook list of countries by total fertility rate. Most countries are below replacement fertility; most of the rest are rapidly approaching that state.
There is only one region of concern, sub-Saharan Africa, and even there total fertility rate is falling quite quickly.
World population is pretty much only growing because of increasing lifespans: it's just momentum. Sometime between 2045 and 2080, momentum will work towards decreasing populations without any policy effort.
Global population momentum is pretty hard to stop, so there's a much bigger payoff for much less effort if we focus on the wealthiest 500 million people in the world.
But the decline in global fertility rates is driven by improving women’s education, access to contraception, improving infant healthcare, and economic opportunity for the developing world - all things which population campaigners have been pushing for decades.
To declare it solved feels like saying we don’t need the Clean Air Act because the air is now clean, when it’s the Clean Air Act which is responsible for that!
Yes, there are encouraging signs that the world population is going to level out, but let’s not take our foot off the gas on all the measures that got us here just yet?
33 comments
[ 45.3 ms ] story [ 2574 ms ] thread> 69 days to save the earth: ... hovering over all of these is whether the US will play its role in helping take collective responsibility for the future of the planet.
Looks like a scenario for a movie with Bruce Willis.
High-impact wealthy people definitely need to ratchet down their consumption, but why can we not also address overpopulation at the same time?
a) reduce the consumption of the globally wealthy (this includes most Americans)
b) keep the globally impoverished poor to keep their consumption low
c) add in some eugenics and stop the poor people from having more kids with the promise that one day you'll let them consume the same way you already do
You're basically proposing 3, which is asking poor people to voluntarily not have kids so one day they can have what you already have by accident of birth
I also ride an electric bike, live in the PNW where I use barely any heat or AC, limit meat and dairy intake, and generally just don't buy stuff unless really needed.
... so that the planet is preserved for the descendants of less environmentally responsible human beings?
Nothing against vasectomies, I’ll probably get one once I have a few kids. But putting the environment before the propagation of our species is unique to us, and I think a sinister thought pattern. Oh well, if enough extreme environmentalists share the same thought, then there will be no more extreme environmentalists.
I’m all for doing our part to reduce greenhouse gases, and pollution. But not at the expense of human life.
First it’s “To save the planet, I won’t have kids”. Next is, “To save the planet, you shouldn’t have kids”
Regardless if you have children or not, the chilling sentiment still exists. My fear is when, inevitably, there is social pressure, if not force, to adhere to similar doctrines on a larger scale.
The parent envisions a world where the commons have been destroyed because everyone decided to pursue their self interest.
I'm not sure that's cultish - seems like calculated pragmatism about a limited resource.
The danger I see is that, with most movements, once a “critical mass” of support is reached, there tends to be a sentiment of “us vs them”.
Then it’s less about accepting other people’s different beliefs (having x children vs having y or 0 children), and more of shaming/“forcing”/coercing non-believers to your side.
We see this with cancel culture today, and various other movements in recent times.
Are you suggesting that being an "extreme environmentalist" is an inherited characteristic? Presumably not, because that would be ... eccentric, so what are you suggesting?
> social pressure, if not force
In most developed countries the population is falling or would be falling if it weren't for immigration, and currently that's with a fair amount of government support for human reproduction. If most people agreed that the population should be reduced and government policy were to reflect that opinion then I think the population would continue to fall without the need for anything the slightest bit chilling or oppressive.
However, a minority political or religious movement could interfere with that.
Regarding the second quote, we’ve seen what government policy’s effect is on reproductive limits, such as number of children laws in China (assuming you’re alluding your that, but perhaps not). Obviously there exist other policy options, but I’d rather not have my generation, or someone else’s, be a guinea pig for such policies. Further I don’t think any government should have a right to determine specific axis of child rearing, such as limiting offspring.
Regardless of whatever small accommodations you may make, you apparently consume at a first-world level, because "all doing our part" seems to indicate that you're not doing a lot more than those around you, and for the most part we're not doing much. Presumably you want your kids to be able to do the same. You definitely don't sound like you're talking about slashing your or their consumption by say a factor of 5 or 10.
But you also want to have "a few" kids, which usually means 3 or more, which means above replacement level.
You're not just increasing the number of people; you're increasing specifically the number of high consumers.
You can't have both increasing population and increasing per-capita consumption. In fact, you can't get away with increasing either one for the long term without at least reducing the other. And in the still-longer-but-not-that-long term, there's a floor on how far you can reduce consumption and still stay alive.
So at some point you HAVE to stop increasing the population. Or not only does the surrounding world suck, but people simply start starving.
... and people who think the "demographic transition" is going to ride in and save the day are thinking pretty wishfully. It may cause a bobble. It might even get the world 100 years. But in the end, evolution keeps running. There's going to be a heritable tendency to overcome the "demographic transition" factors and reproduce anyway. If that's not artificially stopped, there's going to be a problem.
Space travel is not going to fix this either.
I'm sorry that reality seems anti-human to you, but then the universe has never been obligated to care about humans.
Have kids. But please be mindful that it has a real impact, and one greater than mostly anything else you can do.
I’m pretty sure humanity is at no risk of dying out. 90 percent of us could not have kids, and there would still be plenty of people.
Rationale: If you acknowledge you are alive and conscious reading this, why would this experience be something unique. Especially if everybody else reports the same? If not, why keep you alive?
No, we do not. Nuclear energy is by no means emission-free.
> There is no such thing as a zero- or close-to-zero emission nuclear power plant. Even existing plants emit due to the continuous mining and refining of uranium needed for the plant. Emissions from new nuclear are 78 to 178 g-CO2/kWh, not close to 0.
-- Mark Z. Jacobson, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University
https://www.leonardodicaprio.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-e...
> a) reduce the consumption of the globally wealthy (this includes most Americans)
> b) keep the globally impoverished poor to keep their consumption low
> c) add in some eugenics and stop the poor people from having more kids with the promise that one day you'll let them consume the same way you already do
I think there is a plausible scenario where wealth becomes even more concentrated such that most Americans join the globally poor (this reduces the number of globally wealthy without reducing their consumption, after which you can assume scenario B). This is more or less the setup for the one-season TV series "Incorporated".
In practice, the most effective route to limiting population growth has been shown to be making people rich.
As societies become more wealthy fertility rate tends to drop below replacement levels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
Quote: "The higher the degree of education and GDP per capita of a human population, subpopulation or social stratum, the fewer children are born in any industrialized country"
It's puzzling how the article can claim that consumption at the rate of wealthy nations is unsustainable, even with their relatively small populations, then propose as the solution to raise a far larger number of people to the same levels of affluence and consumption.
We don't need to.
Overpopulation has already been addressed. Look at the CIA's World Factbook list of countries by total fertility rate. Most countries are below replacement fertility; most of the rest are rapidly approaching that state.
There is only one region of concern, sub-Saharan Africa, and even there total fertility rate is falling quite quickly.
World population is pretty much only growing because of increasing lifespans: it's just momentum. Sometime between 2045 and 2080, momentum will work towards decreasing populations without any policy effort.
Global population momentum is pretty hard to stop, so there's a much bigger payoff for much less effort if we focus on the wealthiest 500 million people in the world.
To declare it solved feels like saying we don’t need the Clean Air Act because the air is now clean, when it’s the Clean Air Act which is responsible for that!
Yes, there are encouraging signs that the world population is going to level out, but let’s not take our foot off the gas on all the measures that got us here just yet?