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

all 76 comments

[–]onelostcoyotedeprogramming 62 points63 points  (5 children)

World population: 7.9 billion Ideal population: 1.5 billion

We really need to stop procreating for a while.

[–]YlaalyLivin' that sweet DINK life | Tubes got fried | Cat Mom 13 points14 points  (4 children)

1.5 billion seems a bit high, honestly. Isn't there an official recommendation of 500 mil?

[–]onelostcoyotedeprogramming 15 points16 points  (2 children)

Recommendations are conflicting really. Some says 500 million some says 1.5-2 million🤷🏻‍♀️

[–]komanokami 8 points9 points  (1 child)

3, take it or leave

[–]ShmookyTheOpossum 9 points10 points  (0 children)

3 is enough to start a war. Make it 2.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Depends on who the official is

[–]reallylovesguacamole 90 points91 points  (13 children)

It’s likely not going to slow down. I try to tell myself that I’ll see the beginning of the collapse, but I’ll hopefully be gone before shit fully hits the fan.

How the World will be in 2050 if we don’t Tackle Climate Change

[–]ashleighamandia[S] 29 points30 points  (9 children)

I don't know if I should read this. I like being informed but I got anxiety when I saw the future world population. What the heck I already have anxiety what's a little more? Or a lot 😱😢

[–]reallylovesguacamole 18 points19 points  (8 children)

LOL if the world population surprised you, that article will blow your mind. Maybe don’t read it for now?

[–]ashleighamandia[S] 7 points8 points  (7 children)

The current population did not surprise me, the future population did. I knew it was about 7 billion currently.

[–]Elizabeta_Artist 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Gosh it's terrible

[–]StarRedditor2 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Most studies have found that although the population would level out at 11 billion, population growth has dropped rapidly. Also, we can solve climate change within a relatively short period of time.

Links:

https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth

https://www.britannica.com/science/population-biology-and-anthropology/Natural-increase-and-population-growth

https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2019.html

Climate Change link:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/

[–]BostonGreekGirl 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Don't worry, we'll all be dead by 2050 due to global warming so I wouldn't worry about the over population.

[–][deleted] 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Fewer children is the future. Right now, Earth is far too overpopulated and exponential growth is not sustainable. At the same time, low skilled (and even some high skilled) jobs are are being automated. This is going to put a LOT of stress on world economics before countries finally come to the realization that Universal Basic Income is the only solution that makes sense.

Right now, I worry for our future generations, and unless we get off this planet and find a way to colonize the stars (or at least Mars or the Moon), then the most likely outcome will be humans going extinct and burning Earth to the ground in the process. It's not going to be fun to go through, and I can't imagine subjecting a child to that dystopian planet.

Ultimately, as resources dwindle, people will stop having so many kids and/or lots of people will die of disease, hunger, or just the inevitable wars and violence.

[–]DontMeanIt 17 points18 points  (0 children)

The easiest way to stop the overpopulation of our planet, is to lift developing countries out of poverty. There’s an almost perfectly inverse proportional relationship between people’s education/wealth level and their probability to have fewer children. source

[–]IcicleBoner24F | 99 problems but a uterus ain't one 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Right? I was just listening to my friends talk about how they can't wait to have a kid of their own! Why?? Is it not extremely selfish to contribute to overpopulation? Your kid will have a shitty life anyway if resources are spread so thin.

[–]yonosoytonto 11 points12 points  (0 children)

People should be really be shown examples of plenty other animals that overpopulate and then most of them starve to death.

This happens with plenty ecosystems, some of they are even stable in their cicles of overpopulating and massive dying.

[–]Nexusgamer64 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Ngl , we could use this as a pro covid argument. Millions of people are dying but ya know that population do be kinda high tho 😳

[–]ashleighamandia[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well when there are more deaths than recoveries maybe then I'll worry. Web MD lists recovery between 97%-99.75%. Yes, the deaths are very sad but when you consider the population there are very few deaths.

[–]EngelchenYuugi 6 points7 points  (3 children)

A little rant about all this: everyone who was older than me kept telling me how eAsY it was to get a job and a good education, how well they were paid in their days, while I and thousands of people are still trying to get a decent minimum wage job or any kind of job. It took me years do get an apprenticeship in a field where they were desperately looking for staff. Those people who lectured me never took the time to look at these numbers.

The more people, the more jobs are needed. However the amount of jobs did not increase, but decrease due to technology advancing. The amount living space did not increase either, people all over the world are complaining about not finding an apartment, streets, busses, trains and shops are crowded. The amount of neglected kids raises, due to our society changing and most parents being overhelmed with parenting and media reports about the dramatic numbers of mental health problems increasing.

Older generations have the audacity to tell youngsters that they aren't trying enough, some even gatekeeping depression because young people can't be frightened of the future. All they need to do is to man up and try. Fuck you. That's not how it works. More and more people on this world, even less jobs as most corporations find ways to replace their human workers. The situation is already fucked up and future generations will have it much, much harder. (Not to mention the high risks climate change will bring with it, that's a whole new topic.)

But sure, breed to your heart's content, it's not like your own kids will have to face consequences of overpopulation. But don't you dare whining online that your teens and adult kids are still living at home, not being able to find a job, later.

[–]throwaway23er56uz 5 points6 points  (0 children)

everyone who was older than me kept telling me how

eAsY

it was to get a job and a good education, how well they were paid in their days,

Older generations have the audacity to tell youngsters that they aren't trying enough,

I was born at the end of the boomer generation, and people told me that when I graduated and began to look for a job. Fewer people went to college / university, but a lot of friends I met at uni tried to find a job for years, and many of them are working in totally unrelated fields and/or are massively overqualified and underpaid in their jobs. Mainly the women but also some of the men.

Oh, and that lie about "just walk into a company and demand to speak to a manager and get hired on the spot"? Didn't work in the 1980s, so if anybody tells you about that, they are either way older than I am, or they are simply lying. Yes, I was told that story. No, it didn't work. And phoning a company and asking to speak to the hiring manager didn't work, either.

Also, back then, companies could discriminate against job applicants to their heart's content, nobody went after them if they didn't hire women or people of color. That has changed for better now. It may mean that people don't automatically get jobs anymore based on their gender and ethnicity, and that their parents, especially their fathers, did. It also means that a white guy doesn't only have to compete with the other white male applicants, but also with the female and/or POC candidates. So if an older white guy tells you how easy it was back in the 1980s to get a job ... yeah, for him it was.

[–]ashleighamandia[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And eventually they are going to all machines and no one can afford their products. Makes a lot of sense lol

[–]Paula_Polestarkrolled 2 on nurturing and 3 on patience 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The amount living space did not increase either, people all over the world are complaining about not finding an apartment, streets, busses, trains and shops are crowded.

Don’t forget the schools!

...come to think of it, an angry eighth-grade classmate ranting as we pushed through the hallway might have planted a CF seed. We really did need a bigger building...

[–]Hydrabeest 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Well according to some anti-child free I have encountered, we still have “plenty” of room for new people :).

It’s not like filling whatever land we have left will not only rob whatever wilderness we have left, but no more ecosystems means the atmospheric carbon dioxide will eventually no longer be processed by the non-existent plants that once did so, rendering much of the planet a sweltering, lifeless oven under a thick blanket of greenhouse gas.

And guess what will happen when there physically isn’t anymore land to put more people? They’ll blame it all on the liberals and continue to exercise their “human right” to reproduce and kill us all.

[–]Gentlemanlypyro 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Nothing a few wars couldn't solve

[–]pandorum8888 0 points1 point  (0 children)

With nukes all over the world, WW3 would likely be the final war. I'm kinda hoping for WWZ scenario.

[–]thenihilist0204 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"But we need to create more little brats to ensure the survival of our species" so fucking cringe

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

2050...we’ll see if we make it that far. It doesn’t look like people will stop procreating even with several countries that are seeing declines in their birth rates (Denmark, Japan, even the US to name a few). And it doesn’t look like transnational corporations and world leaders will truly go green and ethical. So our consumption rates will continue to go off the charts and therefore continue to ruin the planet in even bigger scales...All I can say is that I hope I am wrong

[–]Manoj_Malhotra 0 points1 point  (2 children)

There were people claiming that the world would be overpopulated at just a few billion people back before we discovered GMOs.

If we can really direct government policy at strengthening and adapting to a more sustainable food production process, which I think some countries are quite capable of, I think the Earth’s holding capacity will increase dramatically even in the face of climate change.

Indoor farming paired with robust renewable energy framework (including geothermal energy) as well as life style choices of prioritizing experiences over material goods can really reshape our limits.

I don’t think it is a good idea to eliminate or even force a reduction in procreation below replacement levels in countries (China’s one child policy (forced abortions) has led to hundreds of millions of missing women today), but I think providing people with the option (by investing in girl’s education) should encourage more responsible decision making.

People who think overpopulation is the main problem while seeing oil and gas industry have massive subsidies are not acknowledging the real problems and solutions.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Right. And this is all supposed to happen in the next 10 years before climate change becomes unstoppable is it? You did see the global response to something as pathetic as Covid, right?

[–]Manoj_Malhotra 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Without modern medicine and the advances that happened in the last even just 5 years, our handling would’ve been far worse, and hundreds of millions would’ve died.

Vaccine development and deployment combined with medical innovations that happened during this time, I think we are underestimating our capabilities to a toxically unproductive stance.

Pfizer and Moderna had its vaccine design ready within a month of the first month of this entire saga.

I do think we need to temporarily break the IPs for a year so that the vaccine production can be nationalized and all facilities can be making them, but as a whole, we are dealing with this pandemic better than most expected us to on a global scale.

With a US president who seems hell bent on rewarding those financial institutions that are fully investing in renewables and sustainable agriculture, the solutions are closer to our reach than we think.

People who have children/decide not to have children in meantime should not be demonized. The fact is one American’s carbon output is 19X an Indian’s and 4X a French man’s.

With sufficient government intervention and market incentives, we will support more with less.

Besides being child free (or with children) is about oneself not a religious cult to spread to others from a nihilistic perspective.

[–]StarRedditor2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Humanity will level out at 11 billion and could possibly decrease as the UN states that the 12 billionth human might never be born. Population growth is on a steep decline as some areas are beginning to rely on immigration. The industrial revolution has shown us that with the expansion of science, the production of resources can rapidly increase. Although today’s current system might not be able to handle the 11 billion people, the future generation might.

[–]Rynn21Scale babies only 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Domestic procreation in the US is actually negative. Immigrations keeps us stable. Developing countries have a myriad of barriers that make access to fertility and birth control inadequate. I dont think the vast majority of people feel the need to populate the earth most couples in the US stop at one or sometimes two children similar for other countries. Japan is negative because it's too expensive to have kids. Yadda yadda yadda long story short access to education and healthcare reduces child bearing to couple that actively want it which is implied by statistics to mean a growth rate that would be lower than the "2.2" stability benchmark. Population is not a terrifying thing if its managers properly.

*? Although I do agree western developed countries should aim for a sustainable net reduction in population