Study reveals halving human population gradually could help Earth
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/earth-human-population-halved-200-years-resources-b3022756.htmlOpen linkView original on lemmy.worldSyndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on lemmy.worldhttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/earth-human-population-halved-200-years-resources-b3022756.htmlOpen linkView original on lemmy.world
31 replies
Big downvotes for mentioning that dumbass, MCU Thanos.
Population reduction is mostly an economic problem that gets really wacky because of the dependency ratio. Right now we're already having issues with equal amount per age group but if elderly start becoming disproportionately large group it'll be hard to support them.
Retirement savings are now more important than ever.
Or just end the few thousand billionaires who are literally more damaging to earth than the rest of us combined… But sure, much easier to just kick back and let 4 billion of the rest of us die suffering instead.
Yea, fuck these articles trying to push eugenics. We currently have falling birth rates across the globe yet food production per person is still increasing.
These concerns about overpopulation have plagued public discourse since the fucking 60s and 70s as a distraction from talking about sustainable practices that don't align with the interests of capitalist economics. The problem isn't the size of our population but the structure of our resource production and distribution.
Before we start trying to justify the systemic prevention of human procreation (eugenics) and dictate who can and can't have children, let's fix the fucking wanton waste that we create in the neverending pursuit of fucking profits.
Waaaaaaaay before the 1960s actually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus
I think we could easily see the global population drop back to 4 billion well before 2200, but it almost certainly won't be "gentle." Wars, famine and disease, more likely.
For some context, the global population was about 4 billion in 1974-1975, so a little over 50 years ago. It's very natural for a population crash to follow such a relatively sudden population explosion.
The Earth is finite. We do not have infinite resources so we can't grow - in population, production or consumption - forever. We will hit the physical limits to growth eventually, and when we do there will likely be a sudden and dramatic collapse.
I’d actually argue that the Earth could sustain more people than we have now, and quite comfortably. The issue is the massive inequality in distribution of resources that is preventing it.
Reducing suburbs could also help a lot. Use the vertical space!
Agreed, though I feel like having fewer people would at least give the planet some extra cushion for natural human inefficiencies. (Though I'm open to being totally wrong on this. I'm not an expert.)
Though any talk of population management is obviously ripe for eugenics (hell it basically is eugenics), or problematicizing the working poor especially in areas most likely to produce climate refugees. When its the most wealthy countries that actually take more than their share (something about removing the plank from your own eye there...).
Increases in equity and access to birth control are enough on their own from what I've read, but you wouldn't think it to hear the neo Malthusians eco fascists go on.
Birthrates in developed nations have already plummeted with the introduction of the anti baby pill. We don't need to hit any resource barriers for a population decline.
The global population projections I've seen estimate the world's population continuing to increase to about 10.3 billion by sometime in the 2080s, and then beginning a slow decline from there. I can't say for sure where the limits to growth are, but I think we will reach them before then. Of course I could be wrong, but that's what my gut tells me.
And a big reason for that isn't just the growth in global population that is expected to continue for several more decades, but the imperative for economic growth, even in already very wealthy countries with advanced economies (and declining birthrates). When we do inevitability hit these physical resource barriers (and again I think that will happen before global population is projected to peak and begin declining), I think we will experience a significant global economic crisis that could plunge hundreds of millions, if not billions, back into extreme poverty, and that could cause average life expectancy to decline dramatically and infant mortality to increase. I think that could lead to a pretty significant and probably very sudden drop in global population, especially if it is accompanied by war and agricultural disruptions from climate impacts.
That website is a fucking dumpster fire.
How about letting me finish reading the article?
No! 🔔
Oh great idea! Let's gradually start with the rich and then we just stop.
I hate these framings. It's not about "helping earth". The earth doesn't care. About anything. It's a rock. The point is about keeping earth habitable for humans. It's about helping humans.
And animals and plants. The fungi and bacteria will be fine (in fact I can feel them eagerly awaiting all the corpses). I'd argue that whales care a lot, and if they knew what we were doing they'd ram a lot more cruise ships.
Ok, let's start by getting rid of the people sorted by net wealth. Would be fun to see if we'd actually lose any significant knowledge.
I reckon having 0 human population would really help Earth.
Don't worry, we're getting there.
The Earth will do it itself when it needs to.
She already tried with Covid 19. Let's see what she tries next time.
That's literally what's happening with low birth rates across the globe.
Except it isn't.
Birth rates are falling but production per person is still increasing.
Reducing the amount of people doesn't solve the unnecessary and wasteful overproduction.
Wtf are you talking about? Birth rates are leading directly to reduced population. Do you just disagree with ppl for fun?
And the reduced population isn't resulting in a reduction in production. Do you not know how to follow a train of logic?
Using less resources is more sustainable?? 1?2? Who could have guessed??
No shit. Sadly the geopolitical instability caused by the finger snap would take us back to the Bronze Age.
climate change will take care of that.