Most scientists may agree that climate change exists, but they have vast disagreements on the best way to fix it. Every proposed remedy has opportunity costs, and hidden costs, and unintended side effects.
You want an electric car? Fine. The batteries require rare earth elements, which are strip-mined in third-world countries using child labor. You may not be burning carbon, but you are destroying the topsoil, polluting the water, and benefiting from slavery.
There are no perfect solutions. Everything requires trade-offs. Every solution has a dark side, and everyone has ulterior motives, even if they don’t know it.
To keep things straight, the vast majority of working climate scientists form an overwhelming consensus that global warming is real and is a true worldwide crisis.
No overwhelming consensus has formed yet on other points, like what the expected increase in global average temperature will be by 2100, what the best mitigation solutions will be, whether geoengineering is a good or bad idea, and - for this thread - what an optimal global population might be. Scientists do disagree on all of these and for very good reasons.
Demographers pretty much agree that there is no absolute answer to optimal population but scientific speculation seems to be hovering in the 1-2 billion range. Enough people to maintain a modern society with reasonable creature comforts while placing minimal stress on the environment.
I was born in 1953 so I remember when there were a lot fewer of us, too. But a constantly growing population has been the norm for our lifetimes.
I too remember living with fewer people. It was nice. And, I remember the fearsome warnings of population explosion in the 1970s. And then the 80s come along and everybody forgot about it. Too busy buying Izod shirts and parachute pants, I suppose.
As @Stranger_On_A_Train alluded to in post #3, a declining population can have both beneficial and adverse effects. Good for decreasing pollution, bad for human economies. The problem with disrupting economies is that it’s a harmful human situation, but is correctable over time. The problem with over-polluting our world is that it’s a dire problem for all higher lifeforms on Earth, and if it cascades out of control, may not be correctable.
The animals don’t deserve to be brought down due to our incompetence. If we can’t help destroying ourselves, give some other animal (probably cats ) an opportunity to evolve and control the Earth. They may be better caretakers. They can’t be much worse.
And, it would be nice to drive without perpetual traffic jams once again.
19th century Pennsylvania was mostly farmland, necessary because of low crop yields. Now it is mostly forest. Which do reptiles, birds, and most non-human mammals prefer?
Well, in Philadelphia, not only were there plenty of people, there were a lot more.
One way to lower the human impact on the environment is to concentrate people in cities and feed them with efficiently raised food.
If people work from a big single home in a semi-rural area, and then drive a long distance to buy low-yield organic produce, they are going to have a big environmental impact, even if there are fewer.
Unfortunately, I think, the population that will decline the most is that of progressive-heavy cities, where children often grow up to become environmentalists. And the population that will increase the most is that of conservative religious groups like the Amish and ultra-orthodox Jews whose virtues rarely include a big environmental commitment. This is another reason why progressives telling each other we need fewer people is self-defeating when it comes to achieving their goals.
Not really. Environmentally responsible people physically outbreeding everybody else is not the only, and certainly not the best, way to increase the percentage of environmentally responsible people in the population.
No, I didn’t live in those places. I lived in Philly. Is your point that more people would be better for Nigerians, Chinese, and Ukrainians? Seems to me that fewer people would mean fewer people suffering.
Famine has become rare worldwide as population increased. Direct cause and effect? No. Indirect? I suspect. But in any event, population increase did not stop the decline of famine.
Ukraine today is a whole other tragic situation. Both Ukraine and Russia were in absolute population decline before the war started. I make no cause and effect claim, except that population decline didn’t prevent war, something that is, among other things, environmentally harmful. And having fewer people doesn’t prevent a government from wanting more land.
Agreed. Fewer dying as well. And fewer scientific achievements. And fewer experiencing joy.
Living in or right near Philly my whole life, depopulation also apparently means more traffic jams. That part I don’t really understand (or maybe it is decline of public transit).
Agreed. I am too moderate to favor trying to outbreed.
Outbreeding is unneeded because some of the children from big highly conservative familities will rebel against their upbringing. Some of those rebels may even be reading this! But if progressive communities experience considerable (no one can pin down a number) population decline, it will have an effect.
I got the hell out of Dodge Philly decades ago, so I didn’t really experience much depopulation. [FWIW, I have fond memories of Philly. Can’t beat a Philly cheesesteak, or hoagie!]
On the other hand, thanks to local politicians who can’t say no to a pretty developer, I now live in an area that is experiencing a massive population increase. Our adjacent town is the second fastest-growing community in America. The town brags about that, and even advertises it as a feature. I lament it. Most do.
Traffic is much worse, accidents are more frequent, people’s demeanor is worse, and native wildlife is being displaced at an alarming rate. People complain because their dogs and cats are being killed by bobcats, lynxes, panthers, coyotes, large gators, and fat water moccasins. Why? Because if we encroach on wildlife’s turf, wildlife is going to encroach on ours and eat our pets. Can’t blame them.
I see no benefit to too many people.
I suspect no cause and effect. Better agricultural methods and transportation is my guess.
I never proffered that decreasing population was a cure-all for the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, only that it would decrease pollution. And pollution, I believe, is the most dangerous man-made long-term hazard to our biosphere.
To stop the extinction-event train, we can either have fewer pollutants, or fewer people polluting, preferably both. I believe we are making progress with fewer pollutants, and maybe progress in controlling the population. Is it enough to stop the train? Melting Greenland gives me doubts.
…and fewer crimes. And fewer experiencing misery…
I suspect it has nothing to do with decreased population, and everything to do with declining public transportation. Philly’s public transit was near-excellent when I lived there. Bus service, high-speed line, subway, trolleys—all good. I never had a problem getting from point A to point B in Philly. I could zip down to Pat’s Steaks from West Philly, no problem. Gimme a cheese wid, garçon!
The Philadelphia metro area hasn’t depopulated, which means the population is just spread out more. Even if you assume no changes in how people travel, an increase in trip lengths will increase traffic by itself. The last mile where everyone converges suddenly turns into the last five miles, etc.
I conjecture is that as more and more people moved to the suburbs, more and more drove to work. We lived in West Philly and my father worked at 58th and Market and either walked or took the bus on 56th to get to work. I used the bus and el/subway to get to school and to college too. Then we got a car (didn’t have one until 1953) moved to the 'burbs a couple years later. After that my father drove to work. Another car on the road at rush hour. As the city dropped from 2 million in 1950 to its current 1.5 million, the greater Philly area didn’t lose population; it grew. And all those people used their cars to go anywhere. I know we did.
One point I’d like to make. It’s not so bad being in a small age cohort. Really, everything came easier for me. The selective HS I went to wasn’t selective in those days. There were 1800 of us in a building built for 2000. After the baby boom, it became much harder to go there. Colleges had grown during the late '40s to accommodate the GIs and even the Ivies needed to fill their classrooms. That’s how I got into Penn. Then when I finished my PhD, there were jobs galore. I even got an unsolicited offer! Ten years later the boomers had a much harder time of it.
I question that one. U.S. cities with declining population have experienced high crime (Detroit, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Newark, Baltimore). Those with stable or increasing population are long-term safer (El Paso, San Diego, New York City). Cherry picking? I don’t think so, except that I cherry-picked the nation I know the most about and that happens to be where I live. I wonder if crime rates after depopulation has been studied world-wide.
There are now more people with smart phones in Philadelphia in 2023 (population ~1.6 million), than there were in 1950 (population ~2 million). Is depopulation the cause of more smartphones? Probably not.
By the same token, depopulation is probably not the cause of increased crime in cites that experienced significant economic stagnation for decades, like Detroit, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Newark and St. Lewis. The affluent fled for the hills. The poor couldn’t afford to leave. The poor commit more crimes against persons. The affluent commit more white-collar crime, which doesn’t get reported in city crime stats.
) an opportunity to evolve and control the Earth. They may be better caretakers. They can’t be much worse.