zlacker

>>onnnon+(OP)
It's taboo to say this, but people worldwide have had far too many children, and I believe that overpopulation is the root of the sustainability crisis, including climate change and pollution.

And that taboo is probably rooted in evolutionary psychology, people have a genetically driven tendency to criticize those who advocate having less children? So could there be an instinctual drive behind it?

https://www.flashpack.com/solo/relationships/dont-want-kids-...

https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/childfree-by-choice

>>127361+ox
I think there's 2 topics that need to be held apart here:

1) Limiting number of children in rich countries. This is what your links talk about I think. Yes, perhaps there is a taboo in place here.

Is that relevant to sustainability crisis though? Population is already declining in rich countries, quite naturally.

2) Limiting number of children in poorer countries. Well, as in the article pointed to in a sibling comment, "Richest 1% account for more carbon emissions than poorest 66%"...

So by saying that overpopulation is the root of the crisis -- are you not saying that it may be better that 10 poor people are not born, than for rich people to do minor changes to their lifestyle?

>>dagss+JG1
The issue is the global population. Obviously, that's the metric that matters for global issues like the climate and environment.

The global population is still increasing. Furthermore, as poor countries develop this is compounded by increased consumption (both resources and energy) per capita. In that respect, "richest 1% account for more emissions than poorest 66%" should be interpreted as very worrying when the poorest are getting richer.

Ultimately we don't anyone to be poor. At current population levels this would probably mean a total collapse of the environment.

Overall, the global population is indeed the root cause of our problems.