It’s all fine and good for John Kerry to utter a fundamental truth about a major driver of climate catastrophe, but it is a useless proclamation without offering a solution.
Have enough tipping points been breached that there are no prescriptions to offer?
Alarmist headlines frame population declines in certain countries as a “demographic timebomb.” Governments respond with pronatalist incentives for large families and/or laws restricting abortion and contraceptives.
Hey, just want to throw out there that discussing abortion rights in the same breath you are talking about global population control probably isn’t the greatest of ideas.
Are there certain prescriptive measures surrounding climate catastrophe that should not be discussed? And if so, which ones and why not?
It’s well known that a warming climate reduces fertility and birth rate. It’s almost as if nature itself provides its own global population control.
Are there certain prescriptive measures surrounding climate catastrophe that should not be discussed? And if so, which ones and why not?
Yeah I think killing unborn children in the name of climate change is one of those things that we should leave off the table. Yep.
Dunno. Making abortion legal and possibly free worldwide means fewer unwanted humans.
Also, regulating any individual’s health needs are fraught with complexity and a waste of resources.
Regulation in general is too far from the locus of actual decision to be very precise. It’s better just to keep government and big corps out entirely.
Yeah, I don’t think any reasonable person is really suggesting that. I prefer that this group discuss matters in a materially and practically objective manner and eschew manufactured moral outrage or virtue signaling. I find no value in entertaining notions that include oxymoronic or indefinable phrases into a frank discussion, nor do I consider it topically relevant.
Furthermore, although you have mentioned one issue that should not be discussed, I notice that you have not given any indication as to why this should not be discussed. You can keep the answer to yourself, as I suspect that the answer has more to do with morality than the material reality in which humanity finds itself.
Finally, and continuing off-topic, if you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. Subscribing one’s morality to another is not only unhelpful, but undignified. Thank you for your cooperation.
Has anyone mentioned immigration? What about welfare? Removing those would help a great deal. So would my personal favorite solution, which is putting wolf habitats in the middle of cities so that they eat the weak.
I don’t know why this is getting downvoted. It’s clearly satire, folks. I especially like the part about wolves. Can we do that?
Losing 3 billion people would destroy the global economy. Capitalist economy needs constant growth to survive.
Capitalist economy needs constant growth to survive.
Well, do I have some bad news for you! The world population isn’t projected to peak until 2080, but the U.S. population is projected to peak in 2052 (<30 years). We have one generation to figure out the alchemy of prosperity under population stagnation.
FWIW: there’s nothing written in stone that says you must have growth to sustain capitalism. A shrinking labor pool can be replaced with improved efficiency (i.e.: AI & automation). A shrinking consumer base can be replaced with increased per-capita consumption (i.e.: more consumerism). Love it or hate it, capitalism in an extremely adaptable system that will readily adapt to changing tides – necessity is the mother of invention.
Or you can just abandon some of your old productive capacity. Depending on how you define capitalism a market with private ownership but little investment might still count.
I don’t really have feelings towards it. Your analysis is obscured by rose-colored glasses.
Get rid of the taxes and the growth requirements are way down. Technology seems to have stabilized and we are now realizing that the whole internet boom was a bubble.
Interesting. I wonder if there are any economic models that recognize that infinite growth can not be achieved when resources are finite.
May not even require economics. Space in Earth is finite and each human requires more space not just to live but for food, products, schooling, hospitals, government offices, restaurants, etc.
I seem to remember reading a blog post from a physicist about this. He was talking to an economist who though growth would continue forever, but then he pointed out current levels of energy consumption growth would take only a few centuries to get to the point of cooking the Earth just with waste heat.
Is that capitalism, or just our taxes-entitlements Ponzi scheme?
Lmao, if you alarmists were right, the planet would already be dead, and Planet wouldn’t be able to sustain any life. That’s the bottom line.
I’ve been alive long enough to remember that you’ve changed the name and cause of your alarmism 3 different times, and said that the world was going to end 3 different times since I was little, and you’ve been wrong all 3 now… 4 times. 😂🤣 There is NO science to what you do. Nothing. I’m older than most if not all of you in this thread. So don’t argue. Stop lying to the world. Cause We’re all laughing at you.
How delightfully and intellectually astute of you to play the age card. I am cowed to submission by your ancient prowess.
