Ladyloafer
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2019
- Messages
- 1,034
sorry. *shame face*
i'll edit it.
i'll edit it.
I'm probably a bit more of an optimist than you.
Which proceeds from assumptions with which l take issue, and projects an idealised outcome with which ditto.
A thousand years ago we lived an outdoor life, in an unpolluted environment. We ate an organic, locally-sourced, mainly vegetarian diet, and took lots of aerobic exercise.
Life expectancy was 40.
maximus otter
Money.And how do you think the problem of who goes and who stays will be resolved ?
INT21.
Initially, but space travel will get cheaper. Resources can be mined from other planets and the price will fall.So 99.9 % of the population would have to stay and put up with whatever was left.
And how do you think the problem of who goes and who stays will be resolved ?
Money.
...Wasn't it Asimov who wrote 'Earth is room enough' ?.
The problem is not that there are too many people, it's the resources they use. Rich people use up far more than poor people.
Frugal First World people who refuse to play the game by consuming more and more of everything are seen as, at best, eccentric.
Can't believe no one has yet menitioned the Georgia Guidestones, and their first 'rule'.
- Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
No less idealised than smugly focusing on how good some of us have it today and assuming there's no need to consider how well the intricate web of mutual worldwide interdependencies affording us this relative luxury can hold together.
At least BMCS recognizes that things change, and there's an endless series of tomorrows within which such change can play out ...
Agreed ... This strongly suggests conflict and fighting is a symptom and side effect of excessive population in a given space..
In addition, we historically tend to devolve into conflict and fighting when someone believes they've something significant to gain or lose.
This strongly suggests conflict and fighting are inevitable side effects of any globally-scoped effort at restricting / reducing that excess population.
The problem is not that there are too many people, it's the resources they use. Rich people use up far more than poor people.
Frugal First World people who refuse to play the game by consuming more and more of everything are seen as, at best, eccentric.
Maybe it's time we took control of our own behaviours instead of passing the blame on to everything else around us?Yep. Lots of people (but maybe not as many as might be thought) need to step down their relentless wasteful consumption. We don't need to return to mediaeval levels, but something akin to a Costa Rican, or south Indian, median standard of living.
People used to laugh at me 25 years ago for using a home-made fabric shopping bag, but maybe I was just ahead of the game! I don't know if it's just me but seeing stuff like the overblown luxury of Dubai, or the pointlessness of Formula 1 racing (using fossil fuels), or sandwiches sold in plastic boxes just makes me feel ill and guilty on their behalf.
The world's population is forecast to stabilise at around 10-13 billion within the next 100 years, then gradually fall. The main 'boom' in world population currently taking place is down to improved healthcare and not extra or multiple births [ie., folks are sticking around a lot longer] The global average birthrate per woman is almost down to 2 (replacement level), and then predicted to fall further. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate for the figures
Some nations are already seeing marked birthrate decrease (eg., Italy, Japan, Korea to name a few).
As education and information spreads, family sizes fall and there's some room for optimism here. The main issues facing us all in the 'first world' are how to care for elderly people compassionately when they are in the majority (Japan is already facing this demographic conundrum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_Japan ) AND how to suppress the model of a constantly expanding economy and shift it into something much less wasteful and damaging.
It's not impossible that a pandemic will get some of us, leaving only the fittest, but the predictions of doom are a bit overblown. Each one of us that turns their back on rampant consumerism and waste is doing their bit, however small it may seem. We have that power! If the billionaire class wishes to zoom off to another planet and consume that, too, then let them.
Yep. Lots of people (but maybe not as many as might be thought) need to step down their relentless wasteful consumption. We don't need to return to mediaeval levels, but something akin to a Costa Rican, or south Indian, median standard of living.
People used to laugh at me 25 years ago for using a home-made fabric shopping bag, but maybe I was just ahead of the game! I don't know if it's just me but seeing stuff like the overblown luxury of Dubai, or the pointlessness of Formula 1 racing (using fossil fuels), or sandwiches sold in plastic boxes just makes me feel ill and guilty on their behalf.
The world's population is forecast to stabilise at around 10-13 billion within the next 100 years, then gradually fall. The main 'boom' in world population currently taking place is down to improved healthcare and not extra or multiple births [ie., folks are sticking around a lot longer] The global average birthrate per woman is almost down to 2 (replacement level), and then predicted to fall further. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate for the figures
Some nations are already seeing marked birthrate decrease (eg., Italy, Japan, Korea to name a few).
As education and information spreads, family sizes fall and there's some room for optimism here. The main issues facing us all in the 'first world' are how to care for elderly people compassionately when they are in the majority (Japan is already facing this demographic conundrum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_Japan ) AND how to suppress the model of a constantly expanding economy and shift it into something much less wasteful and damaging.
It's not impossible that a pandemic will get some of us, leaving only the fittest, but the predictions of doom are a bit overblown. Each one of us that turns their back on rampant consumerism and waste is doing their bit, however small it may seem. We have that power! If the billionaire class wishes to zoom off to another planet and consume that, too, then let them.
I suspect plenty of Chinese couples might have differing views.would it not be better to introduce compulsory small families
I suspect plenty of Chinese couples might have differing views.
It's also interesting how, when people in this thread have mentioned the correlation between improved education for girls - which must be as close as we get to an unqualified good thing - and falling birth-rates, that more invasive/coercive policies are still being suggested instead...
AnonyJoolz,
In an ideal world, maybe yes.
But a large percentage of the world is populated by people whos beliefes do not allow for this option.
INT21.
Something not quite right about that.
Although the following list supports you.
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-fertility-rate/
Maybe it is a locality thing, But everywhere I am looking around me the average appears to be closer to three. Approaching four.
If it's true then it's good news.
I find it interesting that the USA is 1.68, and the UK 1.73 (I think, would need to look it up again.
I'm wondering if it is allowing for many women not having any children. As that number increases it will give a false impression.