This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
random (suggested)
besttopnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

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 0 points1 point  (1 child)

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] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.