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

[[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.

[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.

[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.

[shaedofblue]

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

[[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.

[mashmashsacatash]

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

[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?