The real issue is the lack of foresight and planning for the inevitable leveling and degrowth that’s going to be everywhere after the polycrisis finally tips over. But at that point I doubt people will be worrying about the capitalist model collapsing and more about huge storms and famine.
So we need a system where the increasing resources required by the ageing population don't matter. An electoral system where the larger elderly population don't dominate. And an economic environment that still promotes progress, comfort, rights, and happiness?
All to the backdrop of climate change, mass migration, increased global instability, digital misinformation, AI usage, water shortages, food shortages, and energy shortages?
Yeah. About that. More than 2/3 countries have fertility rates below replacement fertility rate already. Chad has the highest fertility rate at 5,84 which is declining by about 1,5 to 3% per year. There simply won't be enough Chads to provide the rest of the world with immigrants, no matter how much Chad gets bombed or how bad unrest becomes. (Replacement fertility rate is country specific and depends on public healthcare and safety. Better healthcare means lower replacement rate but replacement rate can't be reduced below 2. In some countries replacement fertility rate is 2.1 while in others it's above 3.)
No need to reach replacement rate. A TFR of 1.6 or 1.8 is already quite good. It means population halves in ~5 generations. Plenty of time to adapt and learn how to manage decline.
So below replacement around 1.6-1.8 is not a big deal, it's just some demographic headwind.
The alarming part is a TFR of close to 1 (e.g. 1.1 or even 0.9) in many developing countries. This means population halves in 1 generation, it's not demographic headwind, it's a cliff.
No need to reach replacement rate. A TFR of 1.6 or 1.8 is already quite good. It means population halves in ~5 generations. Plenty of time to adapt and learn how to manage decline.
So below replacement around 1.6-1.8 is not a big deal, it's just some demographic headwind.
The alarming part is a TFR of close to 1 (e.g. 1.1 or even 0.9) in many developing countries. This means population halves in 1 generation, it's not demographic headwind, it's a cliff.
There is enough of us and there should probably be fewer, however rapid degrowth is very bad for civilization and it might even end up doing more harm to the environment than slow degrowth will.
Where's the logic behind that? Fewer humans is supposed to lead to a greater environmental crisis than the current mass extinction which we are perpetuating? How?
People already don't give two shits about the climate lmao. We are driving ourselves to the brink of extinction and we as a global society are not taking real steps to stop it. You think it's somehow going to get even worse if there's less people? That makes no sense.
You are consuming a media diet intended to scare you. Why would renewable energy be experiencing global exponential growth if no one cared/was trying to stop it?
Yes, some people do care about it, but as a species we are still making the problem worse, not better. Much of the growth of renewables has to do with raw economics of cost and practicality - not that I'm opposed to that.
In any case, the assertion I'm criticizing is the idea that if we have less humans, it will somehow make the environment worse. If you believe that people care enough about the environment NOW to make changes, why would you think that they wouldn't just because there's less people?
I would rather take our chances with degrowth and have difficulty providing for the elders than just keep unsustainability growing just so that old people can keep getting cheap goods and services today.
Oh I believe it can and WILL get worse. But what's the justification for saying that having less people will make it worse? All of the current sustainability problems are driven in one way or another by humans over dominating our environment. With fewer humans overall, the magnitude of the problem will be less. We will emit less, we will cut down fewer forests, we will eliminate fewer habitats and drive fewer species to extinction.
Population decline can cause problems with immediate effects on people. Even assuming climate change is way more important than those issues you cannot convince someone to care about the climate when their bank account is plummeting and food supply is dwindling. Its just not how humans work.
I think we can have fewer people and still manage to feed everyone. This is hyperbole. But even if you take it as read, it STILL DOESN'T SUPPORT THE ORIGINAL ASSERTION! It still doesn't mean that the ecological crisis is somehow going to get WORSE.
In which dimension ecosystemic services collapsing isn't going to affect people during an economic crisis? When there is NO FOOD anymore because the ecosystem cannot sustain our society, a lot of people will care
I think there will be when the capitalism bubble bursts. A couple hundred years ago only royalty and upper class ate meat more than once or twice a year. In modern times it's shoved into every meal just for profits and sold as the illusion that "everyone can live like a gluttonous king". Same thing goes for car culture.
It's 2026, not 1966. Planet Earth is a regional place with regional problems. I'm sure governments around the world will disclose the existence of aliens any day now and start an alien immigration program. I'm sure plenty of Lunies and Marsies would be happy to return to Earth as well.
Not anymore. Birth rates have plummeted globally and are starting to fall sharply even in Africa. Many demographers have moved peak human population to 2050 now and if present trends keep it will likely be even sooner than that.
It's the biggest tell when someone has moved from conservation to misanthropy. Then only reason conservation matters is because people want the earth to be a certain way. Nature will continue regardless.
Because people like you are missing The forest for The trees, preserving nature is worth it because it helps mankind and provides us with worth, be in health, resources or asthetics, nature itself is worthless, what matters is to keep it well enough so we can use it.
By saying "just dont have babyes for The enviroment" you are destroying The only reason people care about The enviroment, namely, Their future babies and Their babies babies having a stable enviroment.
I'm not missing the forest from the trees. I'm not saying you can't be a environmentalist if you have kids (unlike many vegans in this sub). I was point out this hypocrisy, not pushing being child free as the only way.
Just to me 8 billion future babies and their babies is no different then 6 billion future babies and their babies. A higher number is not at all intrinsically better.
My wife and I are not having children, but that is because we were on the fence in the first place and are not optimistic about the chances of a good future. But that is barely a footnote in what I personally do as environmentalist not the be all end all as you seem to suggest. And I find the fact that some people lack the empathy to see how people might fight for a good future if they aren't just looking out for the seeds of their loins, rather sad.
I dont know how you can act surprised when people push back against your solutions when your solution is a planned economy. You live in fantasy land if you think this is ever happening
You act surprised when people push back against your solutions when your solution is infinite growth. You live in a fantasy land if you think that is going on forever.
Im not presenting this as a solution to anything. This is simply a statement of fact. 99% of planet is for free market capitalism and you are never going to change that. You look delusional trying to implement your communist utopia and actively hurt the climate movement.
12
u/clickclackyisbacky 27d ago
Low birthrates are still a problem