The answer to unlimited growth: degrowth (billion, world, bill)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The world population will peak at somewhere around 9 billion. Malthus is still wrong.
The leftist policies are so bad they are now to the point they have to argue economic decline is good.
There's survival and then there's quality of life. Birthrates are lowest in densely populated cities because modern life is too much to handle. The stress, the costs, it all adds up.
It's also environmentally destructive to have so many people consuming resources.
I could understand wanting a larger population if we were striving for some big goal like space exploration, and human capital was the limiting factor. But most people are just sort of in limbo, working to produce stuff and then buying that stuff with the money they make. It's just a loop with no purpose except consumption and at root survival. A small fraction of human wealth is invested in things like R&D, while most gets recycled and some wasted as consumption for pleasure and survival.
(In fact, lack of human capital is our greatest limitation, but we are lacking the rare, talented people. There is no shortage of the median human. Hence my call for selective degrowth. You could call it "smart degrowth" if selection is too strong a word.)
In theory, yes. Except as a practical and biological matter, that's not how it works, unless the catastrophe is of such magnitude that it kills just about everything off.
It's counter-intuitive, but the urge to survive is so ingrained in biological organisms that they will reproduce in large numbers in the face of ever greater adversity until the adversity is way greater than they can handle and then they succumb. Greater reproduction is the species' way of ensuring survival. People often wonder why "the poor" have larger families, even beyond the capacity to feed the family members. That is why, even when people are starving, if they have just enough energy for sex, they will attempt to reproduce, until they are too weak to do so. The hope of the organism is that at least some of their progeny will survive, one way or another.
In fact, if you want population to drop, provide more food and more security. This is why affluent families often have fewer children.
If you want more population, provide less food and more adverse circumstances.
My opinion:
Very Interesting.
Let's take this concept one step further.
Based on organism survival a dramatic increase in the numbers
of gay people on the planet can be the warning bell that will
signify a threshold that the planet is overpopulated and
the numbers need to be reduced in order for the human
race to survive.
There's survival and then there's quality of life. Birthrates are lowest in densely populated cities because modern life is too much to handle. The stress, the costs, it all adds up.
It's also environmentally destructive to have so many people consuming resources.
I could understand wanting a larger population if we were striving for some big goal like space exploration, and human capital was the limiting factor. But most people are just sort of in limbo, working to produce stuff and then buying that stuff with the money they make. It's just a loop with no purpose except consumption and at root survival. A small fraction of human wealth is invested in things like R&D, while most gets recycled and some wasted as consumption for pleasure and survival.
(In fact, lack of human capital is our greatest limitation, but we are lacking the rare, talented people. There is no shortage of the median human. Hence my call for selective degrowth. You could call it "smart degrowth" if selection is too strong a word.)
I’m not saying less humans on this planet would not be a good thing I’m just quite sure the means would all most certainly not justify the ends.
Do you think sometime in the near future this might actually be a thing? It pretty much goes against core capitalist values and everything modern society is built on.
Let's face it, the way we as a species are going...we can't have this forever, right?
Do you think sometime in the near future this might actually be a thing? It pretty much goes against core capitalist values and everything modern society is built on.
Let's face it, the way we as a species are going...we can't have this forever, right?
I'm in agreement with Bill Burr. It's not about stopping consumerism, we simply have way too many people:
If you don't like cussing, don't watch. He talks about dogs first, and how we manage the pet population, and segues into human population management.
Human Population Management a la Burr....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
