Posted: Apr 12, 2018 12:43 pm
by Cito di Pense
felltoearth wrote:
minininja wrote:
Alan B wrote:I think the apparent reduction in the fertility rate shown in Hermit's post will have, in the long term, little effect and will be too late.

But other than horrific illiberal policies nothing can be done to end population growth faster. Moreover, if we did substantially reduce the number of new children being born further, we'd end up with a large population of old people with not enough young people to work to look after them.

There is no absolute limit on the number of people that the world can sustain. It depends on technology and how we use resources. The article you link to talks about a "European standard of living" but that doesn't actually mean quality of life, it means the amount of non-renewable resources we consume. But that's only so high because our current societies are horrifically wasteful. That's what needs to change.

Yep. You’ll have an easier time controlling resources than ever controlling population.

It sounds great on paper. Other than the fact that nobody knows how to implement either sort of policy, the three of ya have saved the planet. Last I heard, only religious nuts were bent on salvation, and they don't know how to implement their brand, either, even though it only involves imaginary souls, even though an imaginary job is easier than a real one.

Yes, there may be no practical limit on the number of people the world can sustain, but this speculation is only useful for tossing out the implementation of 'illiberal policies', but these seem to develop naturally with overcrowding. Heaven forbid any illiberal policies, though, right? Fortunately, nobody knows how to implement those, either. As Alan B can testify, there's never been a better time to be OLD and living in the developed world.

I spent a lot sweat in my younger years being anxious about the future of humanity. That was years ago. Fuck if I'm not still here. You do likewise.