• Archangel1313@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    22 hours ago

    For decades, we’ve been fed this narrative that overpopulation is eventually going to destroy the world. But, now that birthrates are declining…a shrinking population is suddenly the problem.

    • booly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      22 hours ago

      we’ve been fed this narrative that overpopulation is eventually going to destroy the world

      It’s always been wrong, and some of us have been arguing against that kind of neo-Mathusian worldview this entire time.

      Note that the same view also leads to the incorrect conclusion that population shrinkage will be good for resource management, pollution, etc. If one believes that a large and growing population will deplete the world’s resources and destroy the environment, one might conclude that a shrinking population will help conserve the world’s resources and preserve the environment.

      But look at how things actually play out. The countries with the shrinking populations are still increasing their resource consumption, and the slowdown in population growth hasn’t slowed down resource depletion in large part because humans don’t all use the same amount of resources. If the population of India shrinks to the size of the population of the United States, but then increases its greenhouse emissions to match that of the United States, that would be bad for the environment despite the population reduction.

      A shrinking population isn’t really a problem in itself, but an aging population is. That’s the concern about birth rates, is the worry that unproductive old people will have their lives cut short rather than enjoying a reasonable retirement.

      • RBWells@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        15 hours ago

        I get this, but we can’t have an infinitely expanding population, at some point it will have to stabilize, and there has to be the glut of old people at the beginning of that. People are aging more slowly than in the past, at least, even if living longer more of those years are good and can be productive.

        • booly@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I don’t think it’s an insurmountable challenge. Just that the ratio is what matters, which means abrupt changes to birth rates might be more problematic than the magnitude of the change over time.

          But I also don’t think that a stable population size solves the climate crisis or resource depletion. It might be the case that 8 billion people in 2075 end up consuming way more energy and natural resources in an even less sustainable way than the 8 billion people of 2025.

          • RBWells@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Could be, sure. But also might not. That’s not really something we can know now, but I think we can know that a pyramid scheme is unsustainable. The price of less polluting renewable energy is falling fast, for one thing. I personally don’t think the big population is all bad, so many people means more good people too. So much technological progress.