https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation#History_o...
Currently standard of living are growing almost all over the world and human population is predicted to pick and stabilize at around 11 billion.
I really recommend "DON'T PANIC — Hans Rosling showing the facts about population" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E
What's also interesting in his video is the fact that people tend to be very misinformed about state of the world affairs. E.g. when asked questions about certain statistics, they do worse than random. And the better educated you are the more misinformed you may be.
And yes, I would gladly give up my right to procreate. I have no interest in having children, primarily because I believe it's a terrible thing to do in today's world.
Yes, the solution is to stop thinking of procreation as a naturally occurring event and to instead limit each person to 1 living offspring (so each couple can produce 2 children). By the way, science doesn't provide solutions (that's engineering). Science only provides explanations.
I'm sorry are you a politician or an authority figure?
>1
How did you measure the optimal number to be 1? And how would you value an ethnic minority to be just as valuable as the majority? Don't you support greater minority birth rates at the expense of the majority?
>explanations
No, that's philosophy. Granted, I haven't encountered a reproducible study on climate change, the scientific method proves or disproves hypotheses to provide a baseline of knowledge. The scientific method is how scientists develop early-stage solutions to climate change, not building contraptions.
Frankly, I don't care what the relative birth rates are between "minorities" and "majorities." By the way, which metric are you using to define minority? Is it height? Nose size? Personality type? I'm guessing it's just race, which is a very narrow criteria, but that's the only the criteria respected by the modern definition of "diversity."
> No, that's philosophy.
Erm... no. Science can give us an explanation for what is causing climate change, and even how quickly climate change is occurring, but designing a solution to it is firmly in the domain of engineering.
Anyway, that's all semantics. As to how I came up with the "1" number is really pretty straightforward though. That number will prevent the population from growing or shrinking -- it will maintain the current number. Isn't that obvious?
Second: How do you propose to enforce your limitation?
We, you and I, the top 10% richest people in the world are responsible for 50% of global emissions. Population of my home country is declining rapidly, I bet yours home country is as well.
Also let me ask you a nasty question, why should your right to exists trump someone else right to have children? Why don't you leave and make space for 10 children that will be born somewhere in Africa, that will probably emit less CO2 during their whole life than you already did?
I'm not claiming I have a right to exist. In fact, that was the thesis of my comment, so you may want to work on your reading comprehension. You're the only one claiming anyone has a right to exist (or a right to be born). In my opinion your rights only exist after you are born, meaning no person should have the right to procreate.
So, I think more productive question would be: How would you take away people right to procreate?
How do you imagine doing that if you can't get USA to stick to Paris Climate accord?
If you want to invest in health care and education in Africa - awesome! You have my full support. For example educating woman has excellent side effect of reducing fertility rate without taking any of their rights.
Or would "unsustainable carbon emissions and ecological damage" be enough? And if that's enough, aren't we already there today?
But the important question is what would you do about possibility of overpopulation however it is defined?
If you want to invest in health care and education in Africa - awesome! You have my full support. For example educating woman has excellent side effect of reducing fertility rate.
If you think about enforcing population restrictions, then you should think harder. How do you imagine that would look like on a global scale if you can't get USA to stick to Paris Climate accord? Some country with nuclear weapons threatening mutual assured destruction if some other country doesn't stick to 1 kid policy? Ridiculous.
https://www.gapminder.org/answers/will-saving-poor-children-...
https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$state$marker$axis_x$domain...
This is a fundamental tragedy of the commons. I feel guilty about even wanting to have two kids at some point due to the climate impact. Everywhere I look I see people having large families without caring. This has to be balanced long term for our species (and others) to survive centuries from now.
Speaking as bluntly as I can here : if you want to have kids to gain a 'deep and rewarding purpose' because you somehow feel lacking in purpose, please don't have children.
It's analogous to a teenager that joins the military out of high school because "they don't know what they want to do.".
Figure things out, then make a decision. Don't make some big brash decision in order to figure things out. The only 'depth' that might added to your life may actually just be unenjoyable complexity and nuance.
Because its not an issue any more. The world wide population is stabilizing. Most countries of the earth will face a population collapse in the next 30 years.
Is it harder? Sure. But it's possible. More people is more labor to fix things. The labor just needs to be used correctly, and consumption needs to be reduced and changed.
Talking about overpopulation and "shaming Western countries" sounds a bit like a Trojan horse for some racist policies, considering that population is growing the most in non-western countries.
IMHO the opposite is happening. Former developing countries are raising their living standards dramatically, which inevitably results in a larger economic footprint per capita. Also, migration to developed countries usually increases the living standard of the migrants, but this also increases their economic footprint. I just do not see where consumption is being reduced.