Pop. needs to fall back to ~1.7B as that's Earth's human natural carrying cap. - as determined by the pre-Haber Process natural Nitrogen pool. Vaclav Smil, SciAm, July 1997, 76–81. More relevant than ever.
Synth. N is not a solution as is isotopically diff. and harms plant cell structure in our food.
There is no magic ‘carrying capacity’ number, except perhaps a couple hundred million before mechanized society and fossil fuels. And those times were far from pretty.
And synthetic fixed nitrogen is not isotopically different in some meaningful way. And even if it was, that isn’t damaging anything.
Correct. This the first article that I have read that has the right solution to declining fertility.
Miss often than not, I see it framed as an economic problem needing more economic solutions. This article hit the nail on the head. It is also a socio-cultural problem.
And social cultural solutions work far better than purely economic solutions.
If the most critical current issue for humanity is the climate and environmental crisis then we must accept that letting the population decline is also the most beneficial thing we can do for a sustainable solution.
Of course the problem there is that our whole economic system and thinking relies on an ever growing population. We have reached the limit of that on this planet but it is easier to refuse to accept it than to face the challenge head on.
It’s unclear that our economy will survive a declining population. Our economic system for the last few thousand years is predicated on the idea that money will be worth more later so investment in the future is worthwhile. Without growth that is no longer a given. (Granted we could achieve growth by lifting people out of poverty, but there might be a limit)
I’m not arguing overpopulation or carrying capacity. I’m simply pointing out the economic side.
The economy will absolutely survive, not least because we have the technology for automation. There is no reason to suspect otherwise.
Some sectors will be hit. For instance real estate because obviously overall demand will fall. So you may no longer sell your house at a profit... small price to pay in the grand scheme of things.
Growth has to be seems per capita, not overall. It is possible to have a decreasing population while people keep getting better off individually.
I would argue that we don't have much of a choice, anyway, as the enrlvironment will collapse and/or we will live dystopian lives if we keep growing the population (and probable even if the population stays at current levels).
Pop. needs to fall back to ~1.7B as that's Earth's human natural carrying cap. - as determined by the pre-Haber Process natural Nitrogen pool. Vaclav Smil, SciAm, July 1997, 76–81. More relevant than ever. Synth. N is not a solution as is isotopically diff. and harms plant cell structure in our food.
This entire post is absurd.
There is no magic ‘carrying capacity’ number, except perhaps a couple hundred million before mechanized society and fossil fuels. And those times were far from pretty.
And synthetic fixed nitrogen is not isotopically different in some meaningful way. And even if it was, that isn’t damaging anything.
None of this content-free, rambling thread addresses major risks of motherhood. These include:
- death (giving birth is more dangerous than birth control or abortion)
- financial insecurity (can you get a job if you lose your co-parent?)
- hopelessness (many women don't want to bring a child into a world with existential issues like climate change)
And there are many more. Not a single one was addressed by this tweet.
These factors have always been present. If anything, they’re less of a concern now than they were historically.
Correct. This the first article that I have read that has the right solution to declining fertility.
Miss often than not, I see it framed as an economic problem needing more economic solutions. This article hit the nail on the head. It is also a socio-cultural problem. And social cultural solutions work far better than purely economic solutions.
Why does it matter if they've always been present?
Children were historically used as slaves and retirement plans. As economies become more advanced, families need less of both of those things.
So a major economic benefit of having kids is gone and women are more afraid of the risks.
Telling someone "X was worse in the past" doesn't make them suddenly stop worrying about it.
All of those concerns are on the rise in the US.
If the most critical current issue for humanity is the climate and environmental crisis then we must accept that letting the population decline is also the most beneficial thing we can do for a sustainable solution.
Of course the problem there is that our whole economic system and thinking relies on an ever growing population. We have reached the limit of that on this planet but it is easier to refuse to accept it than to face the challenge head on.
It’s unclear that our economy will survive a declining population. Our economic system for the last few thousand years is predicated on the idea that money will be worth more later so investment in the future is worthwhile. Without growth that is no longer a given. (Granted we could achieve growth by lifting people out of poverty, but there might be a limit)
I’m not arguing overpopulation or carrying capacity. I’m simply pointing out the economic side.
The economy will absolutely survive, not least because we have the technology for automation. There is no reason to suspect otherwise.
Some sectors will be hit. For instance real estate because obviously overall demand will fall. So you may no longer sell your house at a profit... small price to pay in the grand scheme of things.
Growth has to be seems per capita, not overall. It is possible to have a decreasing population while people keep getting better off individually.
I would argue that we don't have much of a choice, anyway, as the enrlvironment will collapse and/or we will live dystopian lives if we keep growing the population (and probable even if the population stays at current levels).