zlacker

[return to "I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]"]
1. 127361+ox[view] [source] 2024-01-27 19:42:36
>>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

◧◩
2. guyome+AQ1[view] [source] 2024-01-28 10:01:08
>>127361+ox
> I believe that overpopulation is the root of the sustainability crisis

This has been studied long time ago by scientists such as Alfred Sauvy [1], who concluded that overpopulation is not the cause of sustainability crisis, and that greenhouse gas is the major cause. In particular, limiting the growth of population has few impact on the production of greenhouse gas, whereas changing the means of energy production and consumption is much more impactful.

Moreover the world population is expected to be less than 12 billions in 2100 [2], which is plainly sustainable. This is mostly due to the demographic transition, a pattern observed in most countries, where the fertility rates decrease over time. More specifically I recommend the excellent book of Emmanuel Todd and Youssef Courbage on this subject [3]. The authors argue that in most countries throughout history, when both the majority of men and the majority of women know how to read and write, then the fertility rate decreases, and a revolution becomes imminent.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Sauvy

[2]: https://www.un.org/en/desa/world-population-projected-reach-...

[3]: https://cup.columbia.edu/book/a-convergence-of-civilizations...

◧◩◪
3. lozeng+4T1[view] [source] 2024-01-28 10:28:20
>>guyome+AQ1
Sustainable means different things to different people.

In a simulator, could you have 12 billion people with their needs met, living fulfilled lives and continuing into the far future? Yes.

Is there a political and practical way to reach that state? No. "One study estimates it would take just over 5 Earths to support the human population if everyone’s consumption patterns were similar to the average American." Any US government that tried to bring America's environmental footprint down to a sustainable or fair level would be voted out. It doesn't matter whether it would be gas taxes, meat taxes, per mile taxes, flight taxes, carbon tax and dividend, building renewable energy in less developed countries, or any other scheme. It doesn't matter if it was targeted at the ultra rich or the middle class. The sheer scale of it would cause Americans to vote out the government. And the same is true for any democracy and plenty of the non-democracies too.

◧◩◪◨
4. graphe+QZ1[view] [source] 2024-01-28 11:37:02
>>lozeng+4T1
I'm not sure why they think Americans are a good standard of living. If we want people to be 30+ percent obese, unhappy with dating and the stuff we ordered to have shipped yesterday.

There's programs to give efficient LEDs from comed to people for changing it slowly.

[go to top]