The problem is both, we've already over bred on this planet. I'd prefer 3bil less. But hey, we can support human life on this planet if we want to. We need an energy revolution though, to support the population we have.

Population is going to increase, average energy use is going to increase, impact on the environment is going to increase. How will you deal with the cause of immigration, like you wanted before ?

This post was edited by Knoppie on Jul 24 2018 11:12am

I'll be brutally honest: I dont see a compelling rational or moral argument for why I should have to lower my standard of living as a result of population growth in third world countries. If people are irresponsible and outbreed the natural, geographic or economic capacities of their countries, the resulting misery shall not be my problem.

In the long run, I believe that the best case scenario for mankind... excuse me, I of course mean "peoplekind", is one where we shrink the world population down to around 2 billion people by the year 2150 or so. With such a population count, the entire humanity could live a sustainable life on the material standard of the current first world.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jul 24 2018 11:25am

this

africa grows by over 800k people per week, nobody could ever provide all they need
these sinkholes need birth control more than anything

it has nothing to do with the paris agreement, these "societies" are doomed no matter the climate (if these assumptions are even correct)

One reason is you only maintain your high standard of living because we systemically drain the third world of resources without adequate compensation.

Two great examples are conflict minerals to build computers and diamond mining in South Africa.

how far would those resources take them with an african population that grows by 700-800k per week according to official UN projections?

yes, we're using exploitive trade practices with africa and other third world countries, particularly when it comes to agriculture and natural resources. and those exploitive practices should stop, I agree with that.

What I strongly disagree with is the notion that our wealth is mostly or entirely built upon exploiting the third world. europe, north america and also east asia are far ahead of the third world in terms of technology, education, good governance, work ethic, organization and long-term thinking. natural resources and imbalanced trade are only two out of over a dozen reasons for our standard of living being higher.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jul 24 2018 12:17pm

Seems to me to be more of a natural evolution of societies when standards of living increases, fertility goes down. Following our population growth, most estimations expect a stagnation and decrease global population at around 10 bil. With our pocket of air being as it is, it's a limited resource to filter the CO2 we can produce, even if our population would not rise from now. Economical advancements around the world is going to increase the average carbon footprint of the average world citizen if not left unchecked. Yet somehow this global economical advancement is needed to reduce to fertility rate and stagnate the world population at 10 bil. The technology that we use, and our way of living is destroying our way of living in our current world. Morally I'd like to preserve "peoplekind".

That's my entire point: mankind cannot be saved in the long run unless either the world population or the standard of living drastically go down. I prefer the former.

Any other good options to get to the former?

/e I'm somewhat promoting standards of living in 3rd world countries to reduce fertility rate, combined with an energy revolution that is partially a small reduction of standards of living for investing countries right now, while also being an investment for a higher future standard of living possible in our current world.

This post was edited by Knoppie on Jul 24 2018 12:25pm

You guys are clearly overlooking technological progress, like Thomas Malthus did in the 1700's. As more people are born and time elapses we discover new technologies as well as refine existing ones to use resources more efficiently. Also, as the population increases, there is a greater pool of talent that can go on to make new technological developments.

I'm not saying that population growth is a good or bad thing, butit's not as doom and gloom as people tend to think. It's a pretty common theme in economics and there are some good articles that take it apart.

technology was not the only reason. another key factor why mankind was able to escape the "Malthusian trap" for much longer than originally predicted during the age of industrialization, is that there was still plenty of unsettled land to expand to and untapped but finite natural resources to exploit. but this world is getting pretty crowded with a world population that is approaching 10 billion by 2050, and we have NOT found the technological breakthrough yet that allows us to solve our dependency on fossile fuels and their limited availability, nor their adverse impact on the climate.


not if almost the entire population growth takes place in the slums of third world countries where the "additional" babies are born into filth, misery and hopelessness.



edit: there is also the issue of deteriorating soils, food and nutrition, as explained in the following, excellent article:
https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511

a highly recommended read!

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jul 24 2018 02:28pm