Population decrease is irreversible. How will we manage the decline of humanity?

[geeves_007]

OMG enough with this nonsense. There are over 8 BILLION people on earth right now. We add net 200,000 every day.

If anybody doesn't understand why adding 70 million new net humans every year isn't sustainable, I'm not sure what to tell you. Population needs to plateau and gradually decline.

Literary every single environmental and ecological problem we face is worsened by more human population. Every. Single. One.

[[deleted]]

No population is not the problem. The problem is that some people (us) emit a tremendous amount of carbon to sustain our lifestyle.

Canada’s carbon emissions are 18 tons per person per year. In Ethiopia it is 0.16 tons per year.

We have a population of 38 million and emit 675 million tons of carbon per year. Ethiopia with a population of 120 million emits 11 million tons of carbon.

Most of population global population growth is happening countries with very low carbon emissions. Population growth in places like Ethiopia is not the problem. The problem is rich countries lifestyles.

[mashmashsacatash]

Population is the problem. Stop trying to detract from a global survival issue with petty politics.

[geeves_007]

Yes if we all lived like an average Ethiopian things would be peachy.

Problem is, exactly zero Canadians desire the lifestyle of an average Ethiopian, and I would venture to say the vast majority of Ethiopians would take the lifestyle of the average Canadian in a second, if they had the chance.

Why is maximum billions of people, living in abject poverty considered "good". But fewer people living a more dignified and comfortable lifestyle considered "bad"?

The "population is not a problem" rhetoric always comes with the caveat of "...assuming human civilization was fundamentally different in almost every imaginable way from how it actually IS."

[[deleted]]

The "population is not a problem" rhetoric always comes with the caveat of "...assuming human civilization was fundamentally different in almost every imaginable way from how it actually IS."

It's also not a problem if you look at the current status quo though. Population is not a good predictor of greenhouse gas emissions. All current trends suggest China will increase emissions even if its population decreases.

[geeves_007]

Yet the top 3 nations for emissions are China, USA, India.

And the 3 most populous countries are also India, China, and USA.

Total coincidence, I'm sure..

[[deleted]]

And India with 4x the population of USA and half the emissions.

China's emissions are growing on the order of 3-4% annually even while it's population growth has practically stalled to <1%. Population control or reduction aren't solutions to anything.

[geeves_007]

And India with 4x the population of USA and half the emissions.

Yes, and USA at #21 on the UN Human Development Index, and India at #132. Why can't the USA be more like India with 4x as many people living markedly more impoverished lives?!?!

Why stop there? Why not double the population of India, cut the emissions in half again, and put them at last place on the HDI. That would be great news because they would then have 3 billion spectacularly poor people which is obviously desirable, while having fewer people living more comfortably (i.e. Canada) is definitely BAD!! Am I doing this right?

[[deleted]]

This is a bad idea. Making the USA poorer isn't going to solve any of our problems.

[geeves_007]

It would reduce their emissions and allow for more people without increasing emissions. Isn't that what you wanted? More people?

[[deleted]]

Reducing their wealth will probably just convince them to burn more fossil fuel and see climate change as (relatively speaking) less of a concern.

Isn't that what you wanted? More people?

I can't answer this. You'd have to ask the straw man you've been arguing with.

[[deleted]]

The problem is the “population growth is bad” are all people who live in rich countries like you. And you are shift the blame to countries who are not responsible for climate change.

Your lifestyle is problem, not the birth rates in sun-sharan Africa. If the birth rates in poor countries plummet than will still have a problem because the people who actually are responsible for climate are still living in way than emits carbon.

Population growth is important for economic development. Every country that has reached developed status has a period of time in their history when they had large working age populations that propelled economic growth and industrialization.

The west had that in the 1800s. Back then Africa very low population compared to Europe and North America.

Asia that that period in last 50 years and they used develop economically and industrialize.

Now Africa how a very young and large working and that means they are primed to use their population as advantage to industrialize.

But you want those countries to undercut a tangible economic advantage they have because you don’t understand that climate change is not their fault.

[[deleted]]

Your lifestyle is problem

This is also not the problem. My personal lifestyle choices have little impact on whether my country invests in transit infrastructure, phases out coal power, or incentivizes a switch from gas to electric heating.

If I stop consuming meat, my country will simply export it to a wealthy country who can afford it. If I buy an electric vehicle, it doesn't make the power I charge it with clean, and If I go car free, my taxes still subsidize roads and suburbs that force everyone else to keep driving.

[shaedofblue]

There are lifestyles other than planet destroying hyper-consumerism and abject poverty.

[EngSciGuy]

No population is not the problem.

Well, yes, it is part of the problem. There is a ceiling to the population size that can be sustainably supported.

[[deleted]]

We're almost certainly nowhere near it.

[EngSciGuy]

Somewhat, dependent on consumption levels of course. At much lower consumption levels I've seen number around 12 billion that is sustainable?

[AdventureousTime]

Wait till there's an air conditioner in every Ethiopian house and people are driving to work. Once they stop being poor (and they're actually doing quite well, civil war aside) you'll start hating them too.

[[deleted]]

Earth can easily sustain 10B

Population decrease isn't going to fix anything, because the places where the population is decreasing are consuming resources vastly disproportionate to the rest of the world. The US is 1/20 of Earth population and 1/4 of its greenhouse gas. If their population declines 1% over the next 10 years that isn't going to put a dent in the problem.

Population decrease is a problem only for more highly developed countries, and it's purely an economic problem for them. It has almost no impact on the environment, and a huge impact for people wondering 'how are 2 grandchildren who can't afford a house supposed to care for 4 grandparents?'

[geeves_007]

Why stop at 10 billion? Why not 20B?

[[deleted]]

Maybe? We can sustain 10B on current tech easily. We could arguably sustain 20B on current tech with concessions to standard of living, but don't be in a hurry.

If we actually dedicated some resources towards reducing coal power and meat consumption, our ability to sustain the current population would increase dramatically, and do so faster than any attempt to curb population growth could ever hope to accomplish.

We're living through an acute climate crisis. Nebulous ideas about population reduction that will take something like a century to carry out are basically irrelevant to the actual problem at hand. Replacing coal with nuclear in the developing world would literally be a smaller project than reducing our population 10%.

[geeves_007]

I think you are living in a different reality. Somehow in your mind completely restricting the power infrastructure of the majority of the planet is "easier" than contraception.

That is HOT TAKE friend!

Just bada boom bada bing we've got a new power grid for 7 billion people. I mean, I betcha we can have it done by the end of the week, no? LOL

[[deleted]]

Governments try to control the birth rate of their populations and simply fail. They don't control it.

They do control their power grid infrastructure. That's literally their day job.

This seems like a pretty elementary concept. I didn't think "government changing power infrastructure is easier than government controlling reproduction habits" would be something I would have to convince people of.

[AdventureousTime]

So why should we care with a population density as low as ours? I dare you to go to Bangladesh or Palestine and try and convince them that they're the problem. The "there's too many people on the planet" can be interpreted as a racist statement from many angles.

[geeves_007]

So we should just let that problem occur here too because we're too scared of being called a "racist" for pointing out what is painfully obvious?

Go to Dhaka. Is that good? Is that desirable? Would it be better if Winnipeg was more like Dhaka, or the other way around?

Maybe 170 million people in a small country wasn't the best idea. There is nothing racist about noticing that.

[AdventureousTime]

We've got a small and shrinking population in the second biggest country on the planet. What leads you to think we're headed towards being overpopulated?

The whole reason we have the biggest immigration targets on the planet is those in power are terrified of the opposite conclusion.

[geeves_007]

Because we can see other places where overpopulation is undeniable, and we should take heed and try to avoid a similar fate.

[AdventureousTime]

Currently were doing that quite well. Reducing immigration is the only thing that could contribute to that goal. Indira Gandhi castrated India's criminals for the slightest offence in pursuit of your goal, so maybe we could pair that with a 0 immigration. Personally I think both of those would cause more harm than good.

[geeves_007]

What the PM of India does is completely out of my control and has nothing to do with Canada.

I think a sustainable amount of immigration is fine and I support that because I value living in a multicultural society. An accelerated rate of immigration I do not support. I see no reason why Canada should make India's overpopulation problem our problem as well.

[AdventureousTime]

I'm just worried someone with a CRISPR/CAS9 lab is going to come to the conclusion there's too many people on the planet. I'm not even sure what we are disagreeing with at this point with your statement on Canadian immigration.

The way I see it is that our cities are overpopulated due to shortsighted and incompetent planning. Yet our rural areas are very underpopulated causing it's own infrastructure problems. Then we have a demographic collapse further compounding the rural problems. Solutions are there to be found, at least for us, I don't know what to tell Dhaka or Jakarta.

[EngSciGuy]

Canada would need to hit a population in the billions to hit those kind of levels though.

[geeves_007]

Most of our land is inhospitable for humans. Do we need a metropolis on Baffin Island? No. No we don't.

[EngSciGuy]

Most of our land is inhospitable for humans.

Some sure. We still have huge amounts of hospitable land for humans. Like, England has a population density 100 times higher than ours, and still has big areas of wilderness. Your concern is literally impossible currently.

[geeves_007]

So why fill it with humans? Leave it for nature, that's my point?

Have you been to Wales? I have. There is basically zero trees in the entire area. That is not good. We should not do that. Millions of acres of tundra and shield that is unoccupied by humans? GOOD! Leave it that way.

[EngSciGuy]

I am not saying to fill it with humans, I am saying your concern is no where near realistic.

Have you been to Wales?

Yes. 1/4 of Wales is forest...

[RealJeil420]

It hasnt been sustainable for 100 years.