Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register
This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Elon does not want to increase the population. He is warning of a population collapse, that if it comes true, may weaken if not break civilization.

There are a lot of possible worries about the future. You can add on a nuclear war as well. But societal collapse due to declining population is also a real one.
What makes you think that way? Elon chooses select areas to show population decline, but ignores that population as a whole has been increasing and is projected to continue increasing by everyone who does such estimates. Projections of population growth - Wikipedia.
 
What makes you think that way? Elon chooses select areas to show population decline, but ignores that population as a whole has been increasing and is projected to continue increasing by everyone who does such estimates. Projections of population growth - Wikipedia.

1654883149484.png


Everyone is guessing when it comes to predictions about the future. Elon's prediction is population decline. You are free to choose your own prediction, but you can't call Elon's prediction "wrong".
 
7.2 billion people on the planet by the end of the century is hardly "population collapse."
And when did Elon say a possible collapse would happen? AFAIK, he didn't give a timeline. Look, you can argue with predictions, but it's hard to argue that if a collapse DID happen, it wouldn't be great. Unless, of course, we get lucky in such a scenario and have an AI and robotic driven economy by then.
 
And when did Elon say a possible collapse would happen? AFAIK, he didn't give a timeline. Look, you can argue with predictions, but it's hard to argue that if a collapse DID happen, it wouldn't be great. Unless, of course, we get lucky in such a scenario and have an AI and robotic driven economy by then.

If he's not giving a timeline, then he's not that serious about it. Just more chatter from a "hyper focused" CEO. Has he presented any evidence for his prediction?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 30seconds
My favorite expert on population:

I was just about to post a video by him. He did make a compelling argument that we will stabilize at around 10 billion because as child mortality rates drop, women tend to only have about 2 children each. It's a little above and a little below per country, but it's very close to 2 each.

The problem with this is that of the about 7 billion on the planet right now, about 4 billion are under 30 and those people are going to grow older and have 2 children per woman. That makes the older cohorts bigger until each cohort is around 2 billion each and the world population is about 10 billion.

I don't think the world can sustain more than about 2 billion long term. Maybe a little more, but while 7 billion is doable for a bit, I think we're stripping resources too quickly to sustain it indefinitely.

The don't worry, be happy crowd on population growth think we'll solve all the problems caused by that many people and everything will be fine, but we've lost a lot of ecosystem already trying to give all those extra people a place to live. Madagascar used to be almost all jungle. That's been stripped bare now by an expanding population. There are little pockets of jungle left for what remains of the biodiversity the island used to have. Fishermen are stripping the waters around the island bare to feed the population.

Similar things have happened to Brazil and a number of other tropical countries.

People focus on how much CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere, but too little attention is being paid to the destruction of CO2 sinks around the world. Something has been killing plankton in the oceans, probably due to something we have done to throw off the balance (plastics, agricultural run off, over fishing?) and we've taken down large swaths of jungle.

People in the first world are panicked about plastic straws and other plastic one use items. We do over use them, but 90% of the plastic floating in the oceans come from a handful of rivers, all in Asia or Africa. I don't believe any developed country dumps their trash in the ocean anymore. In a lot of developing countries many rivers have turned into the sewers and waste disposal sites. All that garbage ends up in the oceans eventually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRP3
Scientists used to think 20 rivers at most carried most plastic into the oceans, but now they know it’s far more, complicating potential solutions.
 

I guess my information was out of date, though the bulk of the problem is rivers in developing countries. In developed countries there are both waste receptacles everywhere, but there have also been decades of public education. Most Americans who were around in the 70s will remember this commercial

Though the commercial could be considered culturally insensitive now. The actor who played the Native American was actually Italian.

In any case, there are well developed waste collection in developed countries with a lot of social pressure to dispose of it appropriately. So most trash ends up either recycled or in a land fill rather than in water ways. In developing countries there is limited trash disposal and the population is generally very ignorant about the impact their trash is having on the larger world.

Though some does get in water ways in developed countries. I live less than 2 miles from the Columbia River and I do see some trash along the banks when I go down there, but only the occasional thing here and there rather than the sea of trash I've seen in pictures of rivers like the Ganges.
 
Can some mod move these ecological discussions somewhere else? Or maybe create a separate “Elon musk is the source of all the worlds problems” thread? Yeah I know he said some things tangentially related to ecology, but Elon says a lot of things. If we continue to debate whether Elon is right or wrong on things he said, the noise will drown out any info about Elon himself which is what this thread should be about.
 
I would say that Elon is doing his part.


"Master Plan Part 3 is all about achieving very large scale. In order to shift the entire energy infrastructure and transport infrastructure of earth, there has to be a very high scale. We have to ask what is the actual tonnage? If we work backward from let’s say about 300 TWh of installed capacity in vehicles and stationary (battery packs) then how do you achieve that tonnage from a mining and refining standpoint, but also do so in a sustainable way.

Musk then summarized: That’s what Master Plan Part 3 is: How do you get to enough scale to actually shift the entire energy infrastructure of earth?"
 
Last edited:
Pretty similar to what a number of us have been saying for a while... I'm surprised it took this long.

Edit 1: Better link below - the MSN article just refers to the one from The Verge.
Edit 2: The Verge includes the full text of the letter.
“But for all our technical achievements, SpaceX fails to apply these principles to the promotion of diversity, equity, and inclusion with equal priority across the company, resulting in a workplace culture that remains firmly rooted in the status quo.”

Sounds like they want more DEI. Maybe SpaceX isn’t the right place for that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlatSix911
“But for all our technical achievements, SpaceX fails to apply these principles to the promotion of diversity, equity, and inclusion with equal priority across the company, resulting in a workplace culture that remains firmly rooted in the status quo.”

Sounds like they want more DEI. Maybe SpaceX isn’t the right place for that?
Hilarious that they want diversity yet they condemn Elon Musk when he expresses opinions different from them, way to doublespeak...

Fortunately it seems only a tiny number of employees hold this view, given the article didn't even deem to mention the exact number, hope Shotwell shut this down quick and persuade these guys to find a company more suitable for their ideologies.
 
Hilarious that they want diversity yet they condemn Elon Musk when he expresses opinions different from them, way to doublespeak...

Fortunately it seems only a tiny number of employees hold this view, given the article didn't even deem to mention the exact number, hope Shotwell shut this down quick and persuade these guys to find a company more suitable for their ideologies.
Well, it didn’t take long for the letter writers to get their wish. They now get to find an employer more suited to their worldview. Good luck with that, and hope it was worth it.


Honestly, you have to be pretty naive to think this was going to go down any other way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlatSix911
Honestly, you have to be pretty naive to think this was going to go down any other way.
There are certainly better ways to advocate for change than to circulate public letters and make strong headed demands. The only way something like this would have teeth is if you had a majority of the workforce sign on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.