JRP3
Hyperactive Member
How about just limiting reproduction? Many are already doing that voluntarily. No one is suggesting killing already existing beings.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
adiggs
Well-Known Member
Adding to your list - the other strongly correlated factor to halting population growth (maybe counter-intuitively for some), is access to quality health care. When 2 adults can have 2 children and have them routinely grow up to become adults themselves (health care), the drive to keep having children so that SOME of them will eventually become adults disappears.
Over the bulk of human history, the pattern was 2 adults have 7 children, of which 2 grow up to become adults. The worldwide explosion in population came with improving health care that enabled 2 adults to have 5 children, 4 of whom grew up to become adults. That's better but not good enough because a routine family will either directly experience, or experience through their personal friends, the heartbreak of losing a child (and / or a mother in childbirth).
Once accessible health care improves so that families expect that however many children they have, those children will grow up to be adults, then the worldwide trend (also involving other factors - not exclusively health care) is to 2 adults having 2 children (population stability).
adiggs
Well-Known Member
This is why you watch Don't Panic.
Worldwide limited reproduction has already happened. It's happened in every political system or religion you can name, no exceptions. The one exception is most closely correlated with extreme poverty where about 1B of the world population still resides. Eliminating extreme poverty is the best way to stop the last source of population growth in the world (and is a conscious goal being taken and pursued in the world, with an expectation that its achievable in years or decades, not "never" or centuries).
The worldwide population of children (0-15) has been stable at 2B for more than 15 years (more than 30 years really). The population bands will "fill up" until the worldwide population is 11B (due to 2B sized population segments getting 15 years older and still being 2B in size).
Absent a systemic effort to kill human beings (and not replace them), the planet will have 11B human beings. But it's also unlikely to see 12B (or more).
RobStark
Well-Known Member
There has been voluntary and involuntary limits on reproduction for the last 50 years. Those numbers are already included in the projection to 11B.
Advocating for a limit of 7B people on earth without mass murder on an industrial scale or vast increases in forced abortions/sterilizations on an industrial scale is like screaming "Peace in the Middle East" at an awards show.
Again, as the Swedish professor stated the problem isn't babies. It is population drift from better healthcare and better nutrition.
China and Japan are already having inverted population pyramids. Where a few young people will have to care for a lot of old people.
Further shrinking the youth population further exaggerates the problem.
Population density on paradisaical atolls can be very high because land area is tiny. They cultivate swamp taro intensively in ponds dug to the water table which is not very deep and also have lots of breadfruit and coconuts among other produce, which they brought with them to plant when colonizing. Lots of fish harvested from the sea traditionally in the world's most spectacular sailboats. The sea is a limitless toilet. This is just one subsistence culture which is different from what evolved in easier non-island environments. And hard to find now because meddlers had to 'lift them from poverty' in other words from eden into the slum.
As one example the meddlers thought 'oh no you can't poop in the sea, here we built you an outhouse so you can poop like a white man.' The outhouses polluted the shallow water 'lens' of the islands making them almost uninhabitable. They now have to depend on rainwater.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
You are a wonderful human being. I don't really like the idea of having your babies - but the sentiment holds in a Rick and Morty alternate universe. How about you being the grandfather of my child?
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
skitown
Member
This makes me wonder how long until the legacy manufacturers and their dealers really go at it in a public spat. Direct to consumer is clearly the future. There won't be margins for this extra layer of fat to be competitive in the future.
jhm
Well-Known Member
November 2018 YTD U.S. Passenger Car Sales Rankings – Best-Selling Cars In America
Model 3 continuing to climb in YTD rankings. Most of the major selling models are in real trouble. For example, Camry and Civic are both down 30% y/y, and down YTD 9% and 13%, respectively. If Tesla could deliver 800 M3 per day to the US, it would be in range to beat out Camry as the number 1 best selling car in US. This is starting to look truly disruptive.
Nissan declined 17% YTD overall. The Leaf gained 17% in sales, while all other models lost sales. Similarly, Honda lost 10% sales. Civic, Accord, and Fit sustained this losses, while Clarity FCV and Insight gained sales. My impression here is that bringing EVs to market is one way for automakers to buck the trend of a 10% decline in sales.
Model 3 continuing to climb in YTD rankings. Most of the major selling models are in real trouble. For example, Camry and Civic are both down 30% y/y, and down YTD 9% and 13%, respectively. If Tesla could deliver 800 M3 per day to the US, it would be in range to beat out Camry as the number 1 best selling car in US. This is starting to look truly disruptive.
Nissan declined 17% YTD overall. The Leaf gained 17% in sales, while all other models lost sales. Similarly, Honda lost 10% sales. Civic, Accord, and Fit sustained this losses, while Clarity FCV and Insight gained sales. My impression here is that bringing EVs to market is one way for automakers to buck the trend of a 10% decline in sales.
Actually it would be closer to 940 Model 3s delivered per day. (The Camry has sold 941 cars per day so far this year.)
That doesn't seem likely to happen given Tesla's production rate and that they will probably start sending significant quantities internationally starting next year. (Of course Camry sales could tank next year...)
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Some options:
Sails Smart Green Shipping Alliance partners with Drax and Ultrabulk to cut shipping supply chain emissions - Drax
Fully electric inland shipping
Ah, EUGENICS! Only the progeny of the elite should be allowed to survive!
Ah, as in "the solution to pollution is dilution" ( not channeling Jesse Sr.)? So what do we do with HLRW? Guess!
Oh, the tragedy of the commons.
adiggs
Well-Known Member
When the scale is right, this is exactly right. The principle I learned is that in the wilderness where nobody goes, a group of people should spread out a little bit and make a point of not walking in each other's footsteps, as that will minimize the impact on the environment (by spreading it out and not doing unlivable harm to any one part of the landscape).
But at a national park or a hiking trail, you don't leave the trail. Everybody walks in each other's footsteps so that our mutual impact is concentrated in as small of a space as possible (and where things like sewer systems can kick in and do their thing), thereby preserving the rest of the environment as much as possible.
When the population of the island is low enough, the ocean as toilet is a great solution. It's already the toilet for all the fish and what not that live there, and as long as the debris is within the ecosystems ability to absorb and convert into food, then that's great. But put millions or a billion people along a river upstream of the ocean and using the river / ocean as the communal toilet is a disaster.
This happens with backyard chickens - my backyard will easily handle 3-6 chickens pecking about, scratching at the weeds and compost pile, and their poop becomes fertilizer that enriches the backyard. Put hundreds of chickens into the same space and now I need a sewage system because that space can't absorb and convert that much contaminant (it stops being fertilizer and becomes contamination).
I remember reading somewhere ..(Freek economics maybe) that one of the best tool to free woman from the above is a TV. Once woman see that there is another way to live change happens.
Not to start too much of a fight but religion plays an outside role in the continued enslavment of so many women.
You think combusting wood (hydrocarbons) is pure, but combusting fossil fuels (also hydrocarbons) is evil? What emission controls did you use on your firewood conflagrations?
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
You reveal yourself with that comment. I neither said nor implied any such notion. As others have pointed out the key to reduced birthrates comes with education, proper healthcare, and economic improvement. Can't imagine why anyone would be against those things because of some odd notion that more people using planetary resources would be better.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Article
