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-...
The number of people in India is not why companies like Vedanta Limited, an alumnium, iron, and gold ore mining company pollute so much.
Treat it as a software optimisation problem - should you go after a large number of very minro problems, or take an axe to the single large problem that dominates your metrics?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/20/richest-...
Many NGOs are actively trying to increase the availability of birth control in such regions, they are aware of the problem with unplanned pregnancy in those parts of the world. I strongly doubt there's any racism behind it.
https://www.cgdev.org/blog/access-contraception-global-devel...
While in the west population growth is relatively slow and we still have a high per-capita CO2 footprint.
I guess I unintentionally touched a taboo subject (racism) that's not permitted by the current moral orthodoxy, which is no different to religion in the end? I hope I'm correct about this.
I don't really care if my posts are flagged or even if I get banned from this site completely, I am exercising my 1st Amendment protected freedom of speech rights. It's just that on the Internet every forum is privately owned, there is no "public square" here, and thus all are subject to moderation and censorship.
I like when HN has varying points of view with supporting links/data.
I’m with you on the population and per capita resource use.
Fact is that India is also slowly leveling out. Africa has a bunch of countries with high growth and that’s where the most humans are being added.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populat...
I've found there's a whole philosophy that seems to line up with my (and maybe your) perspective: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology
This is an unfortunate delusion that is widespread, and exploited by governments and industries that seek to ravage what is left of our environment for profit.
If you believe and understand that the earth is a finite place, with finite resources (as all intelligent, rational people do), then you believe and understand that this finite place, with finite resources, can only support a finite population. Of course we can debate about what exactly the "sustainable" population is and we can agree that the "sustainable" population depends on how resources are managed, used and maintained, but there can be no disagreement that this number exists, and that if there are too many people our finite resources cannot sustainably support them no manner how efficiently they are distributed.
Unfortunately far too many people don't believe this, and don't understand that the earth is a finite place with finite resources. They insist that the earth can support an infinite number of people if only we manage our finite resources properly and impose a strict enough dietary and behavioral regiment on the teeming billions stuffed onto the planet.
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?
Each American or European, whose food is grown thousands of km away, is plenty more only to make their salad. Can they be blamed for their Carbon Footprint^TM? I think we should blame the fossil fuel corporations which have turned us into fuel junkies
Overpopulation will solve itself as countries develop. We’ve seen that over and over.
This is congruent with removing women's bodily autonomy, banning abortion and banning or restricting birth control of all types.
Taboo? It's stupid. But it's not taboo, it's an incredibly conventional thing to say, and has been for many, many decades.
It's less true that a valid comparison should be "if not modern 21st Century life then hunter gather".
There's a middle ground more agrarian, less hunter, lifestyle that supported a large population in the past and can likely support a larger population than Victorian times if farming | mining switched across to renewables (electric | hydrogen) instead of fossil fuels - we've learnt a lot about efficiencies in the past century, it's a matter of application and less consumption now, certainly time for less greenhouse gas being released.
people aren't willing to stop paying for conveniences because they're cheaply available, corporations aren't willing to stop selling them because there's a demand for it and money to be made, and governments aren't willing to force anybody's hand because the people and corporations will both force them out of power if they try.
there is absolutely no chance of breaking out of it other than giving up on democracy, but that will only happen when modern society collapses entirely, which will be far too late to prevent unimaginable suffering on a massive scale.
A simple example of this is that water isn't used up, it gets dirty. It can be made clean again but that requires energy. This can be done by humans (water filtration) or by nature (evaporation and rain). We don't manage these cycles very well and they sometimes stretch out over too many of our lifetimes to manage (plastics, some nuclear waste) so it becomes easier to talk about resource 'use'.
The equation is pretty simple `humans × resources/human`. We can talk about reducing number of humans or reducing the resources needed per human. If we manage the cycles well, humans could inject more resources into the system instead of taking away from it. Of course this would still be limited by available energy. In that case, increasing the number of humans within energy capacity could benefit ecosystems.
We already have a lot of available energy but there is orders of magnitude more available as our technology improves — fusion, thorium fission, solar, wind, tides.
The problem with this line of thinking (and similar ones like „what about China?“) is that it basically absolves you from any responsibility in the matter. After all, there are simply too many people on the planet, what could you possibly do about it?
As other commenters pointed out - the west uses way too many resources compared to their population, and that is a problem.
And it is absolutely possible to have a society that doesn’t drain the planet dry, but not with capitalism :-)
And the leader should be who? Of course you, because only you know the solution! Cheeky ;)
A footpirnt so high that it more than counterbalances population growth in the developing world.
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.
In the US we build shelters either out of carbon-intensive materials or use significant carbon fuels for upkeep... or both, usually.
It's not that the technology isn't there, we just choose not to. Hell, some 30% of people love that reality star turned president. Sadly we're getting what we deserve.
Obviously they are not unsustainable in absolute terms but only when too many people live that way compared to the planetary capacity.
So population is inescapably key because we want everyone to have high standards of living.
But yes they want a better life for themselves.
everybody knows the solution, *you* know the solution, it's just a hard pill to swallow so mental gymnastics are preferable.
as a species we know that the overconsumption of resources is the problem. there are exactly zero valid arguments against that. anybody who claims that consuming less resources *isn't* the solution is either ignorant or lying.
I guess people even have their pension funds tied up into the system, so nearly everyone is forced to participate in it, against their wishes even.
Update: Something to back that up: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/04/05/the-worl...
To have that position you basically need to reconcile two positions that to me aren't really compatible, unless someone explains it to me.
Either it's fine for Earth to not have humans and just exist peacefully with the rest of the ecosystem until another lifeform takes over.
Or it's not fine for the Earth to have no more humans and so we need to stop climate change from making the Earth uninhabitable for us, but if to do that we want to reduce the humans, I don't get it.
To "kill" humans to save humans seems weird. I guess you can slide on the scale of "more people living worse", or "less people living better", but to choose who is not possible in my opinion, so this is not implementable.
Because if you care about the Earth primarily, then warming or not doesn't really matter, it's just a geological event like many more gnarly ones over the history of meteorite impacts and so on.
But if you care primarily about the humans, then how can the answer be to have less of them? And pick and choose who gets to reproduce?
it isn't, because no solution that require any form of altruism is an actual solution.
The Haber-Bosch process is the primary method in producing ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen. Ammonia produced, utilized mainly as fertilizers, currently responsible for approximately 1.8% of carbon dioxide global emissions
Yes, green ammonia is a thing - not yet at scale but there are plans afoot, funded by resource billionaires, to make industrial ammonia w/out the greenhouse gas ommissions.
https://fortescue.com/what-we-do/green-energy-research/green...
Population is already naturally decreasing in a fair number of countries. Let's embrace this instead of panicking and trying to reverse the trend.
It's just that it wouldn't work because any group defecting and having more children would inherit the earth and you'd be back to square one, only now not even in control.
It's the same mistake as every other decel "solution".
It's so obvious, and so unbelievable that proponents don't think of it that one has to wonder, who pushes this? Qui bono?
I definitely would say that and would argue it needs to be way more than 10.
If you want to solve manmade climate change you need to solve the demand for goods that cause it. You lower demand by increasing the the supply (can't do that because that increases the emissions you try bringing down) or you increase its price making only the very rich able to afford it and delaying the problem for a decade till population catches up. We already see it with migrant crisis all over the west - both Europe and US.
You do this decade after decade, again and again each time creating more and more privileged cast that can afford it (current policy) and in essence pushing the rest of the civilisation further and further into poverty as they will never catch up and if they do - new legislation will bring them down again to mask the issue once more.
An example of that would be farmers in Europe protesting removal of diesel subsidies or just in general people being able to afford smaller and smaller cars due to taxation in Europe every year.
The problem with these "minor changes to their lifestyle" is that they need to accommodate exponentially growing population that already is a magnitude or more higher than persons who need to adjust.
We are talking about 90%+ reduction in what you call "minor changes" to achieve emission equilibrium to begin with and add that with exponentially growing population and its simply not feasible not due to lack of compassion from top percentile but because changes like these would completely anihilate the modern human civilisation and bringing it back hundreds of years.
As an example theres a very informative video on what happens to country and infrastructure when 4 million people join the power grid in a decade [1] Imagine that scaled to 4 billion and the extreme worldwide devastation.
Population control is the only way to solve climate change and it needs to be reduced everywhere but especially in the undeveloped nations as they have the most potential of bringing everything down.
^ clearly never visited Asia. LOL
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...
The main increase of energy usage has been due to this, not people in urban areas eskewing apartments and public transport to drive cars and live in suburban houses.
https://youtu.be/6sqnptxlCcw?si=FfqAqooG9qg4kejC
Another fun fact: 80% of the world's population has never flown, and only 2-4% fly abroad in a year.
When you get to the far right wing, it's not just about "are there sufficient numbers of children?" but "Is my favoured population subgroup having sufficient numbers of children?"
i.e. racism
Jevon's Paradox[1] states that as efficiency increases (which itself is a form of supply increase), demand increases.
My own view is that the paradox makes the idea of population reduction moot, those remaining humans would simply use more energy because supply has gone up and demand (through lack of competition) going down to levels below supply would, again, drive prices down.
No. It's because it inevitably puts you in the position of deciding who gets to have children while the rest are denied such privileges for the good of the species.
In other words, eugenics.
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.
The bulk of what I value about the future of humanity is our continued existence and collective ability to do beautiful and impressive things together, not the individual existence of some as-yet-unborn hypothetical humans in that future. I don't think humanity's output scales linearly with population and I don't think there's much moral worth to future individuals outside their general contribution to wider human civilisation.
There is absolutely no need to do any of that. Just tax them. Tax the childless and unmarried more. Tax the married couples with children less. Make not having children a form of wealth and tax it accordingly. The results will be achieved without a single sacrifice in personal autonomy.
Important things you can influence for a low carbon footprint are:
- How do you heat and how much? Gas heating is surprisingly bad in the US due to the high amount of methane leakage
- Do you drive a lot in a combustion car, or even worse, fly?
- What kind of food do you eat? As a rough guideline, dairy and meat is pretty bad and beef much worse. Also the stuff that has to be brought in by plane.
Living in nature often makes it harder to have a low carbon lifestyle and the things often associated with "good for nature" like reducing plastic waste and organic products are often worse carbon wise.
Now that we are seeing a reversal to the status quo, you see the move to more efficient systems moving into full swing. The uptake of renewables is exponential now.
I just renovated and fully insulated my house with cellulose fiber that was actually really cheap, double glazed inner windows and installed floor heating with a hydraulic heat pump. My energy bill is almost nothing of what it used to be and I’ve not installed my solar yet, but I’ll be starting in March.
I did this because the price of gas, kerosene (water boiler) and oil have increased dramatically and the technology to do so exists and is cheap enough to make this investment a no brainer from an economic standpoint. It’s hard to imagine how cheap solar panels are now.
I’m not the only person doing this.
The USA and all other developing countries will adopt all these efficient gains at the same rate. No one is going to pay more for less.
The people I know on the right have nothing against birth control. They are just against abortion exept for exceptional circuimstances, because by that point the relevant parties had their chance with birth control. To them, abortion shouldn't be an escape hatch from bad life choices.
In fact, nowadays I'm beginning to hear the opposite: "please have more kids". I'm in Europe atm (I'm south-american) and I'm shocked to see that natives, by and large, just do NOT have kids, or at most 1. All cultural incentives that promoted having kids seem to have been vilified. I find it kind of sad honestly...
There is no consistent way environmentalists can argue their way out of this particular point you made:
> But if you care primarily about the humans, then how can the answer be to have less of them? And pick and choose who gets to reproduce?
To somebody else it means just living life.
There is no way to objectively argue superiority of one over the other except from a religious worldview.
This looks to support my argument as its indeed what is happening and what is causing emissions to go up (less developed nations industrialising) due to technology trickling down. Please correct me if i'm wrong.
> My own view is that the paradox makes the idea of population reduction moot
Lets use math and assume all pollution comes from end users who can afford/drive cars (~20%) and ignore the rest of modern civilisation and set current efficiency of 1x.
8 000 000 000 * 0.2 * 1 = 1 600 000 000
Lets call the 1.6Bil a hard line that we want to sustain aka the perpetual enviormental doomsday in the current year+x.
Over the next 80 years with strict population control and current technology we can make that:
4 000 000 000 * 0.4 * 1 = 1 600 000 000 and bring 20% more people into the top percentile bringing the misery, disease, war and resource shortage down or keep it to its current form.
Or if we wanted to bring same 20% of population to the same mark with efficiency (11.2 bil is expected population by 2100) we would need to achieve efficiency of:
11 200 000 000 * 0.4 * x = 1 600 000 000
x = 1600000000/(11200000000*0.4) = 0.357
Thats an efficiency increase of ~2.8x
So it boils down to you claiming that in the next 80 years we can increase efficiency 2.8 times across the board. This does not only include energy but materials too 2.8x less materials used to build cars, houses, roads etc. And on top of that we will do it with a completely new source of energy since fossil fuels are going dry in the coming decades.
Furthermore you calling population growth moot suggest thinking that this can be repeated again ad infinitum in 2180 and 2260 and so on.
I'll put it mildly - don't think its feasible.
Edit: fixed the last calculation for clarity/typos
The true hard pill to swallow is that YOUR (and a few others') standard of living is unsustainable.
> The issue is the global population. Obviously, that's the metric that matters for global issues like the climate and environment.
Look, what if you could choose between:
Option A: The 50% lowest polluting part of the world's population never existed. Would this make a dent towards global warming? No. Perhaps slow the onset by a few years. The overall magnitude of the problem would be the same.
Option B: Through reduced consumption and technology, reduce emissions of the 50% highest polluters by 80%. This would have a quite massive impact towards global warming AND also help when the 50% poorest increase their living standards.
Given these -- how can you say that "population" overall, without further qualification, is the problem?
Another factor here is that population growth isn't something that will continue as/if people are lifted out of poverty -- when people become richer and more educated, the birth rates invariably drops.
There are many other good comments on this page now about why you are wrong citing statistics and research reports, I encourage you to read them.
And both are a function of the population and are people get out of poverty use of energy and resources per capita only increases, compounding the overall impact, as already said.
If we were 500 million globally, for instance, we would not be having this discussion because there would be no problems.
I am not wrong, this is just a statement of fact. I am always surprised by this ostrich syndrome many have in absolutely refusing to consider that population is an issue, the key issue, even.
If you care about the well being of dogs, how can the answer be to have less of them crammed in your tiny apartment?
It’s about balance. It is not true that more of something is unambiguously good, for itself or the system as a whole.
You should read about how reintroducing wolves, a carnivore that kills other animals, made the Yellowstone ecosystem flourish.
https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-r...
Or the case of Macquarie Island.
https://archive.is/2020.10.21-044800/https://www.nytimes.com...
Or the deer of Manitou Island.
https://www.interlochenpublicradio.org/2022-03-04/unnatural-...
Or, or, or. We have tons of examples.
I can't find the comment in question, but if the person above is right when they said it was about India then you are wrong that they have a high per-capita CO2 footprint.
They are under 2 tons CO2 per person per year.
That's about 40% of the world average, 25% of the EU, 22% of China, and 13% of the US.
> If we were 500 million globally, for instance, we would not be having this discussion because there would be no problems.
But this aside, let's assume you are right.
Which 500 million would you preserve? How would you get there before climate change is irreversible anyway due to melting tundra etc?
Especially given that a lot of human history can be summed up as "wars to determine WHICH one will be the surviving set of humans to survive on limited resources". So which billions do you think will go willingly?
-- Yes, of course, assuming that this magically just happened it would solve the problem. So would a number of other unrealistic solutions that has nothing to do with population control. Are we going to discuss which one out of a number of completely unrealistic uptopias are best?
I see your 500 million inhabitant world, and raise with imagining a world with a population of 20 billion, with a million nuclear plants, no use of fossil fuels, LED-powered vertical farming, centralization of populations in big cities to let wildlife grow back and focus all efforts in responsible, non-disruptive mining of the resources needed.
Which one of those is more or less preferable or realistic is pointless, and distracting from possibilities that may be within reach.
There's programs to give efficient LEDs from comed to people for changing it slowly.
Degrowth is not a viable alternative on a world that's still has a large number of people that need better standards of living, and will still be adding a couple billion to the population. There's no viable economic or political model that would make degrowth work.
We're not even vertically farming at scale yet.
There's a lot of room left for densifying human civilization. Seems like 10x should be achievable.
Not everyone desires the latter, yet it appears to be the much more environmentally impactful one at least at scale..
Changing our farming methods to increase humus and topsoil quality should bring back vitamins to our food. Not only this but it should also capture a great amount of CO₂. I'm not sure how reliable my memory or the original calculation are but I remember reading in "The Scientist as Rebel" that if we increase our topsoil by 2 inches on currently farmed land, that should capture most of the carbon we've emitted during industrialisation.
Of course, as you mention, if we keep mindlessly following the status quo, we'll keep getting what we deserve.
Why?
Why isn't 8 billion enough? Is there a plastic ring prize if we hit 80 billion?
Or are you talking about squeezing the 8 billion we have now closer together?
Perhaps consider that those 80 billion souls will contain Einsteins and Mozarts.
People are having fewer children, as living conditions, education, and acces to TV increases the reproduction rate falls.
Ideally we'll level out at 6 billion or so.
You haven't given any good reason why the earth should squeeze as many upright aquatic apes on it as possible yet.
Oh good, we don't ever need any more then. /s
> Ideally we'll level out at 6 billion or so.
I doubt there's any single ideal population size, because the impact of each individual varies so widely. In the future, when we're all living 100% solar powered regenerative net-carbon-negative lives, the problem will be that there aren't enough people to offset warming caused by volcanic eruptions, meteor impacts, and overpopulated wildlife.
It was approximately exponential up until around 200ish AD, fell below exponential for a few hundred years, then was above exponential for around 600 years (the growth rate was going up approximately linearly), had a period where it varied and even was slightly negative, and then around 1500ish entered a period where the growth rate was increasing almost exponentially. That lasted to around 1960, and since then the growth rate rapidly.
Here's a graph of the growth rate from 4000 BC to 2023 [1] from the data here [2].
I was curious what it is called when the growth rate itself is going up exponentially, but utterly failed to craft a search in Google that worked for me. I then tried ChatGPT (the free version) and at first it was just wrong. I reiterated that I want to know what it is called when the growth rate is going up exponentially, not when the growth is exponential. It apologized and told me it is called "exponential growth of the growth rate" or "exponential acceleration".
I tried to verify that it is called "exponential acceleration" with Google, but failed.
Always handy, the point (lean back, look up) is we don't need 80 billion as a prerequisite to have more - that's a weak (to be generous) argument.
> I doubt there's any single ideal population size, ..
It's bounded by an upper limit of humans living like turkeys in a turkey farm and tossing the weak in the chipper to blend back in with the feed . . . is that your ideal mode of life?
The Earth is nice example of a complex system with many interconnect parts maintaining a relatively stable for millenia feedback regulated environment.
What is the argument for pushing human population to 80 billion, and at what cost does that come in terms of human living standards and the other non human life we share the planet with?
It was advocated by the Nazi's in the 1930's for a start.
Your claim, unproven. My point is that 80 billions souls will produce 80 billions souls worth of art, science, literature, and culture. Which sounds divine. Why would you be opposed to such a thing if it can be accomplished sustainably?
> It's bounded by an upper limit of humans living like turkeys in a turkey farm and tossing the weak in the chipper to blend back in with the feed
Seems that you have a dark turn of mind, which explains the pessimism.
> What is the argument for pushing human population to 80 billion, and at what cost does that come in terms of human living standards and the other non human life we share the planet with?
Humans have lived regeneratively and sustainably in the past. We seem to be in the process of figuring out how to do it in a less labor intensive manner presently. I do my part to live sustainably, and I believe in humanity's ability to innovate and adapt and to address complex problems. Seems like you feel differently.
'On the subject of birth control, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).”
St. Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae, the landmark encyclical reaffirming Church teaching against contraception, on July 25, 1968.
In the encyclical, Paul VI warned of serious social consequences if the widespread use of contraceptives became accepted. He predicted that it would lead to infidelity, the lowering of morality, a loss of respect for women, and the belief that humans have “unlimited dominion” over the body.'
Now, mainstream Catholics are relatively moderate in terms of many modern political positions, but I hope that the fact of approximately 1bn people adopting and affirming this position establishes that my assertion isn't bullshit. Beyond Catholics I think that the "true right" (someone help me please) have many folks (often with undercuts, wild eyes and tattoo's that they regret only because if they are discovered they will disqualify them from public life) who have far stronger views. To find out about these people (I will restrain myself from more powerful descriptions of them) please investigate the "tradwife" [3] and "incel" [2] movements.
[1]https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251920/pope-francis-...
[2] https://theconversation.com/incel-violence-is-a-form-of-extr...
[3] https://jezebel.com/trad-wife-wellness-influencers-are-tryin...
degrowth is the only thing that could work at all, the lack of compatible economic and political models that would be compatible with is exactly my point, which is why we will ultimately not solve the problem.
some of the "innocent poor countries" you're talking about are the worst offenders for deforestation, pollution, and other habitat destruction. get off of your high horse, we are all responsible for the state of the planet we live on.
Regarding the superiority of worldviews, sure, subjectivity applies and we could go down the rabbit hole of discussing that - but the comment I was replying to was not about which worldview was better! Vasco said that "Either it's fine for Earth to not have humans ... Or it's not fine ... but if to do that we want to reduce the humans, I don't get it." I'm not going to argue that my values are the best because it's already self-evident to me and I doubt I can improve on the existing work[0], but I am very willing to explain how they're logically consistent.
[0] Via utilitarianism and the repugnant conclusion and onward. I don't think I can do any better than all the philosophers who've debated this.
> some of the "innocent poor countries" you're talking about are the worst offenders for deforestation, pollution, and other habitat destruction. get off of your high horse, we are all responsible for the state of the planet we live on.
For their own sake? Or is it, among others, Western offshore companies who partake in what you blame those darn third worlders for? It's a global economy.
Think of coffee for example. Pretty sure we consume orders of magnitude more of it in the West than the rest of the World. Yet, the coffee bean plantations aren't exactly at our doors- Instead they replace forests in Guatemala, Columbia, Indonesia, etc.
I mean, you might as well quote me a list of your very personal niche hobbies and the importance of keeping them up as some kind of tradition humanity needs to uphold.
I don't think such a line of argument holds very tight in the grand scheme of things.
To others, enjoying the company of their own children and grandchildren (some of the most commonly shared joys across people, in contrast to niche interests) are far higher up there on their list of priorities of things that make our existence worthwile.
Likewise, utilitarianism won't get you far since the other person must first subscribe to it as a good idea. I don't care about "the greatest good for the majority" in some kind of vague sense whatever it means, if subjectively it means no good to me.
Plainly sustainable without fossil fuels? From what I can gather, the majority of farming, construction and transportation (including of farmed goods) relies heavily on fossil fuels.
The derivative of the exponential function is the exponential function.
d/dx eˣ = eˣ
So if it’s growing exponentially the rate of growth is exponential and the rate of that acceleration is also exponential.
Good. Now read what I wrote again.
Side note on tone: The posturing ("delusion", "intelligent", "rational") makes you look bad. And it's like a thousand times worse when you're trying to pick a fight with someone by argumentatively agreeing with what they said to attack a straw man. If nobody ever told you that before, I'm sorry that you never got the benefit of that advice, and I hope it helps now that you know.
We reduced famines for a few centuries or less while the population in the most polluting countries exploded. Now, we risk famines and a possible slow death due to extreme drought due to the climate change created by the fossil Fuel Industry, in the billions
The implementation of the H&BP was irresponsible and reckless.
Wild humans would pollute less exactly because they are limited by their environment instead of torturing from cradle to the shop billions of chicks and piglets every year
There are billions of shades of grey, like, for example, living like before the 2000’s, when the massive production of plastic crap in China produced pollution levels to skyrocket.
The alternative meant paying wages in the west
This sounds like magical thinking. Even making the huge leap to say that cultural output would somehow scale commensurate with population infinitely, what does that actually look like in a reality with finite time and attention? I think we've already passed the point where anyone can keep up with all the cultural output (music, literature, graphical media) that is released each day. This idea of a cultural smorgasbord where we all get to sit back and enjoy a buffet of art is a dream that can only exist in the most idealistic of vaccuums.
> I think we've already passed the point where anyone can keep up with all the cultural output (music, literature, graphical media) that is released each day.
Good thing that's not necessary for one to benefit from it. I, for one, am happy to benefit from all the medical innovation I can't keep up with.
One is to look at host much its value changes as x goes to x+d, and divide that to d to get an average rate of change from x to x+d. Take the limit as d -> 0 to get the instantaneous rate of change at x.
That gives a rate of change of Limit as d->0 of (F(x+d) - F(x)) / d, which is pretty much the textbook definition of d/dx F(x).
The other way is to look not at the actual value of the change but rather how much of a fraction of F(x) it was. That gives this measure: ((F(x+d)/F(x) - 1) / d. The instantaneous value would be the limit as d -> 0. That limit is of the form 0/0, but using L'Hôpital's rule we can turn it into (using the notation F'(...) for d/dx (F...)) the limit as d -> 0 of F'(x+d) / F(x) which is F'(x) / F(x).
When people talk of growth rate they usually mean this second measure. The first is usually called the rate of change. BTW, note that rate of change and growth rate are related. The growth rate is the rate of change of log(F(x)).
Exponential functions have an exponential rate of change but a constant growth rate. It is that constant growth that makes the concept of a half-life work for things that exponentially decay.
Redo those calculations as if the paradox has weight and see where you end up.