If we do not achieve them, they will be done for us, far less pleasantly.
If we do not achieve them, they will be done for us, far less pleasantly.
I agree that 200 is the high end of the range, but I have always been an optimist :)
I disagree vehemently that optimists are a bigger part of the problem than those who have lost all hope and given their agency over to the hands of fate.
We can agree that the longer it takes, the more will suffer.
At this point many will suffer. But extinction within the century is far from assured.
Actually, in many (most?) countries this is already happening, for better or for worse. It's just a limited subset of areas/countries that have quick population growth. This has different causes and the possible solutions are politically, socially, religiously and economically complex. Or rather, getting to a situation where a solution is applied is complex more than the actual solution.
-=[UN World Population Prospects Report 2024]=-
https://population.un.org/wpp/
there are bunch of online charts and a large PDF etc.
There is little pushback against the increase of these measures. It would be very interesting though if a fertility rate increase was warranted and folks were arguing against them in order to raise it.
This doesn't really require a lower population, it just means people need to stop expecting to live in huge McMansions with A/C blasting all the time and driving around in 3-ton SUVs. Living in dense, walkable/bikable city environments in energy-efficient dwellings, people could live quite well with a tiny fraction of the polluting energy usage.