• scratchee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    We’ve already lucked into a solution to the population boom, the numbers will level off around 10 billion. Given how intractable population control is, we’re very lucky we’ve found this without some dystopian shitshow.

    In the developed world we are approaching the opposite problem, we’re currently dependant on immigration to maintain our societies, but as the rest of the world stops growing we’ll have more trouble getting that immigration and won’t have the local young population to care for our elderly.

    Given that we should be trying to figure out how to encourage a sustainable population whilst we still have time to do so. If we can choose between 1.9->2.2 children per couple as needed then we’ll be in a healthy position to slowly reduce the population to a comfortable level.

    Right now our natural population decline in the developed world is too fast, probably because our society has made being a parent quite an individual burden. Of course, totally moving the costs to a societal model would be a disaster, but presumably there’s a middle ground where people are comfortable keeping the society going at a healthy rate.

    • fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yes, I generally agree. I can’t help but note that we aren’t expected to hit peak population for a long time. There’s a good chance we’ll both be underground by the time it happens.

      Meanwhile, many of the key metrics we use to monitor the environment have already been indicating irreversible damage for decades.