There's also the fact that the global population has to decrease at some point, à la Japan.
There's also the fact that the global population has to decrease at some point, à la Japan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough:_A_Life_on_...
https://www.netflix.com/title/80216393
It is his "witness statement" on how he has personally observed enormous environmental damage over his ~70 year career documenting wildlife throughout the world.
He argues that the solution is to reduce our population growth worldwide.
at the same time, 56 millions years ago the planet was extremely hot: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hotte...
and, to top it off, all we're doing is prolonging the inevitable warming of the planet.
things aren't so clear as that documentary makes it unfortunately.
the planet is warming. we can delay it for a bit, but the planet will continue to warm no matter what we do.
of course we should manage our impact on the planet. but this will represent just a small delay in the grand scheme of things. a few generations, maybe even a few thousand years as you’ve put it.
but a multi generational effort to tackle either moving to a different planet or something like living underground will be needed.
unfortunately our extremely limited existence will make these efforts extremely hard to tackle.
The planet used to be hotter, agreed. But the species alive then were completely different, adapted to living in those conditions. The species alive now (including us!) can thrive in current climatic conditions. A drastic change in a short span of time will lead to a mass extinction.
Unless you think a mass extinction event is ok because it happened millions of years before humans existed? It happened to the dinosaurs so it's no big deal if it happens to most living creatures alive today?
I’ve been wondering lately what happened to the documentary genre. When was the turning point where they started becoming political in nature, driving an ideology based off FUD and pseudo-science? Or have they always been this way and I’m just realizing it now?
As people get older, they start getting more expensive. If you don't have a larger generation coming from behind to provide for that ever-increasing older generation, then the costs have to be spread among fewer people.
The earth's resources are not infinite. We may not be able to say precisely what its carrying capacity for humans is (and the answer would depend to some extent on the conditions in which the humans are prepared to live), but I am entirely confident that there is a limit.
With that said, would you like to be the politician to stop the madness, if that's even possible? Things will not change until we have a crisis.
https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#what-explains-the-...
I don't believe there's anyway to know today that it's a one way ratchet forever.
I thought everyone understands that the planet is overpopulated as it is and that bringing as many children into the world as possible is not a net positive.
this is a myth that has been going on since the 1970s:
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/12/16766872/overpop...
He also writes for The Federalist, another biased publication: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-federalist/
If you look at the destruction of natural resources world-wide, you don't have to be an expert to see that the current resource usage is unsustainable. At the same time the rich countries are unwilling to give up their status. The trend is going in the wrong direction.
The reason that folks face food scarcity is a distribution problem, not a production problem. We don't do a good job at making sure people don't go hungry, even in the US.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/06/phosphat...
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/sea-runni...
https://www.siwi.org/latest/the-worlds-natural-aquifers-at-r...
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/groundwat...
https://www.idtechex.com/en/research-article/the-meat-indust...
again, overpopulation is a myth. a convenient and lazy one. but still a myth.
there are too many resources on the web explaining this.
We may produce enough calories in sugar, but stuffing the world with cheap junk food is not a solution. Total amount isn't a good metrics; total quality and availability would probably be better.
I'm sorry, but this is just a ridiculous statement to make, except maybe if our opinions on what overpopulation means are vastly different.
One can of course argue that sufficient technology can curb our resource consumption without reducing the number of humans, but I find it a bit odd to use hypothetical technology deployment as an argument against the planet being beyond its sustainable carrying capacity today.