• cynetri (he/any)
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    just that it’s unsustainable for 8b people

    cool where’s everyone else gonna live then

    • rexxit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Let the population contract to <<1b as it was for thousands of years of civilization before industrial agriculture caused a very recent explosion in population the past 2 centuries (predominantly the 20th century)

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s…not a thing

        Like literally absurd to even consider as a physical possibility.

        How exactly is the population supposed to contract?

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Under 1 billion is unrealistic but some contraction will happen. The main factor dictating how many children people will have is infant mortality of the previous one or two generations as well as the existence of pension systems.

          …which is the reason why developed countries have birth rates below replacement level and with increased wealth elsewhere it’s also going to happen there, which would mean contraction everywhere. I don’t expect that to keep up forever, however, states will get their shit together and set incentive structures (in particular making having kids affordable) long before we’re contracting to one billion.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Developing countries are not anywhere close to that happening. Their populations are still booming.

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes. The likely turning point, according to the UN, is around 11bn in 2100, then declining. Plus or minus a billion or two and a couple of decades.

              Which is btw nowhere close to the earth’ carrying capacity though that’s highly variable in the first place. It’s probably not a good idea to pine for a population increase past that point and leave some room for other species. And no matter how many we are it’s a good idea to minimise ecological impact. Why do people want fresh strawberries in winter anyway those transportation-stable strains taste like water. If you want strawberries in winter eat jam.

              Also note that this overshoot is happening precisely because developing countries are, well, developing: Their fertility rates still stick to the old child mortality rates but the actual rates are lower so you get a population spike. Keep that up a generation or two and they plateau, then fall as people don’t require kids to provide for them in old age and also are barely affording rent with dual income from three jobs each so they definitely can’t afford a kid. Oh wait that was the US in particular. But yes that’s exactly what you want to avoid to halt contraction.

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s great and all but it doesn’t help us with the much more immediate housing and climate crises.

        • rexxit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Education? Contraception? It’s not fucking rocket science. Every developed country in the world is at well below replacement rates. The idea needs to be promoted and not derided or conflated with eugenics (which it emphatically isn’t). Blunting the impact of an aging population is the most difficult problem.

          Edit: the most difficult problem is that capitalism demands perpetual growth, and billionaires and heads of state with a vested interest in growth would never allow the population to shrink without extreme resistance, like pervasive propaganda and outlawing abortion.

            • rexxit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sure, and so will slowing, stopping, and reversing anthropogenic climate change. Should we give up?

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                My point is, it’s on a timescale that it isn’t useful to discuss as a solution to housing issues.

                • rexxit@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  How about this: housing in places with a shrinking population is relatively cheap and plentiful (math, right?). Developed countries could dial back immigration so that immigration + birth rate is below replacement. That solves overpopulation at the regional level.

        • rexxit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Where “fascism” is defined as whatever you want it to be, regardless of any reasonable definition. Is renewable energy eco fascism? How about fuckcars? How about forcing densified housing?

          Not fascism? How convenient.