Jump to content


Photo

Empty Planet


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 davelew

davelew

    Comptroller of ACMSO That Are Not Beans

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12814 posts
  • LocationReading, Massachusetts

Posted 13 February 2019 - 09:02 AM

Interesting take on the population bomb:

 

 

https://www.wired.co...medium=referral

 

 

The external forces that used to dictate people having bigger families are disappearing everywhere. And that's happening fastest in developing countries. In the Philippines, for example, fertility rates dropped from 3.7 percent to 2.7 percent from 2003 to 2018. That's a whole kid in 15 years. In the US, that change happened much more slowly, from about 1800 to the end of the Baby Boom. So that’s the scenario we’re asking people to contemplate.

 

A lot of people who are thinking about the future of the world, the future economy, the future of city planning, they’re basing their projections on that future size of the human population. And people are actually making decisions based on this.  And most of those projections could be way, way, too high.

 

 


  • 0

#2 the_stain

the_stain

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 70781 posts

Posted 13 February 2019 - 09:05 AM

Interesting, and I hope it's true.  I think a rapid depopulation of the Earth could be awesome for those who are left, depending on how it happens.  We have figured out ways to keep ~7 billion people alive on the planet.  If we could suddenly apply that knowledge to only having to keep, say, 2 billion people alive, it seems like we'd have a new era of abundance.  


  • 0

#3 davelew

davelew

    Comptroller of ACMSO That Are Not Beans

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12814 posts
  • LocationReading, Massachusetts

Posted 13 February 2019 - 09:47 AM

Interesting, and I hope it's true.  I think a rapid depopulation of the Earth could be awesome for those who are left, depending on how it happens.  We have figured out ways to keep ~7 billion people alive on the planet.  If we could suddenly apply that knowledge to only having to keep, say, 2 billion people alive, it seems like we'd have a new era of abundance.  

 

I think this will be mostly good.  Real estate should become cheaper, and there will be less competition for other resources.

 

The problems are that so many assumptions rely on a continually growing economy, and it's hard for an economy to grow when then number of workers is shrinking.  Corporate investments, government debt, social security all could have issues.  There might be issues with medical care if the ratio of doctors and nurses to elderly people changes.


  • 0

#4 Vagus

Vagus

    Just had an organism

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 37121 posts
  • LocationThere

Posted 13 February 2019 - 10:12 AM

If there is food, it will grow.


  • 0

#5 BrewerGeorge

BrewerGeorge

    His Royal Misinformed

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 29506 posts
  • LocationIndianapolis

Posted 13 February 2019 - 10:16 AM

My response to these types of things is always, "You first."



#6 Vagus

Vagus

    Just had an organism

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 37121 posts
  • LocationThere

Posted 13 February 2019 - 10:18 AM

My response to these types of things is always, "You first."

*grows*


  • 0

#7 the_stain

the_stain

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 70781 posts

Posted 13 February 2019 - 10:19 AM



My response to these types of things is always, "You first."

 

Mine is always "them first."  :devil:


  • 0

#8 Brownbeard

Brownbeard

    Comptroller of Ilks

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 27008 posts
  • LocationCedar Rapids, Ia

Posted 13 February 2019 - 10:27 AM

My response to these types of things is always, "You first."

You first what?  I already had a vasectomy.


  • 0

#9 the_stain

the_stain

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 70781 posts

Posted 13 February 2019 - 10:28 AM

Yeah, I did my part.  I only had one kid, on purpose.


  • 0

#10 davelew

davelew

    Comptroller of ACMSO That Are Not Beans

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12814 posts
  • LocationReading, Massachusetts

Posted 13 February 2019 - 12:46 PM

My response to these types of things is always, "You first."

 

I think this is a result of every individual doing what they want.  Nobody is giving up anything, and populations are likely to shrink, simply because that's what happens on average when populations get wealthier and better educated.


  • 0

#11 JKor

JKor

    Puller of Meats

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 38858 posts
  • LocationNW of Boston

Posted 13 February 2019 - 12:51 PM

I wonder what population model the climatr scientists use?


Haha, no I don't.
  • 0

#12 davelew

davelew

    Comptroller of ACMSO That Are Not Beans

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12814 posts
  • LocationReading, Massachusetts

Posted 13 February 2019 - 12:53 PM

I wonder what population model the climatr scientists use?


Haha, no I don't.

 

Actually the economic models are a bigger issue.  Especially the early models from the 1970s missed the issue that a million dollars of GDP in 2010 used a lot less energy than a million dollars of GDP in 1980.


  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users