My immediate response is that this is clearly good news - a gradual reduction in population is a good thing. We just need to work on managing the societal practicalities properly
Reductions in population will happen after the climate change issues go unresolved when they needed to be, and resource scarcity forces an economic global crisis never seen in modern history. It won’t be gradual. Every pop model predicts going from 10B to 1B in less than 100 years post vertex. Or at least it seems if we stay on the track we are on.
Kurzgesagt videos are usually excellent, but in this case the case for population reduction benefits to the environment are simply dismissed with ‘it will take too long for global population to fall’. This is a weirdly trite line in an otherwise nuanced video, ignoring the fact that populations don’t have to decline to improve things - a simple levelling off is beneficial. Moreover, it ignores that most reductions are taking place in countries with the highest per capita carbon emissions
Moreover, it ignores that most reductions are taking place in countries with the highest per capita carbon emissions
Yes but those are also the countries with stagnating or decreasing emissions per capita, while the ones with rising emissions are also increasing in population. These compounding factors can cancel each other out when looking at net emissions.
Let’s say right now we have 10 people from the u.s. emitting 10 tonnes of co2 and 10 people from the developing work emitting 1 tonne of co2, for a total of 110 tonnes of co2.
Now let’s say in 50 years we now have 8 people in the u.s. emitting 8 tonnes of co2 and 12 people in the developing world emitting 5 tonnes of co2 for a total of 124 tonnes of co2.
This isn’t to let western countries and their lifestyles off the hook, or that developing countries don’t have a right to increase their standard of living like the west did, just saying populations stagnating or decreasing won’t necessarily help climate change.
Sort of. They are saying that the rate at which it is levelling off is inconsequential for the environmental effect. However, the rate is enough to have economic impacts already. It’s not that they don’t acknowledge it, they are just saying we can see the economic damage long before well see the environmental benefits.
My immediate response is that this is clearly good news - a gradual reduction in population is a good thing. We just need to work on managing the societal practicalities properly
Reductions in population will happen after the climate change issues go unresolved when they needed to be, and resource scarcity forces an economic global crisis never seen in modern history. It won’t be gradual. Every pop model predicts going from 10B to 1B in less than 100 years post vertex. Or at least it seems if we stay on the track we are on.
any references for said models?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/09/learning/whats-going-on-in-this-graph-nov-15-2023.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Bunch of models on one chart there. The dark red line is if all rates of fertility were the same as the US. The other lines are other global models.
Yes young people not being able to afford families is a good thing!
Fuck 'em, old people got to finish this circus with a bang.
I usualy write a hefty reply on why this is not good news, but InTheNutshell did it better https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBudghsdByQ
Kurzgesagt videos are usually excellent, but in this case the case for population reduction benefits to the environment are simply dismissed with ‘it will take too long for global population to fall’. This is a weirdly trite line in an otherwise nuanced video, ignoring the fact that populations don’t have to decline to improve things - a simple levelling off is beneficial. Moreover, it ignores that most reductions are taking place in countries with the highest per capita carbon emissions
Yes but those are also the countries with stagnating or decreasing emissions per capita, while the ones with rising emissions are also increasing in population. These compounding factors can cancel each other out when looking at net emissions.
Let’s say right now we have 10 people from the u.s. emitting 10 tonnes of co2 and 10 people from the developing work emitting 1 tonne of co2, for a total of 110 tonnes of co2.
Now let’s say in 50 years we now have 8 people in the u.s. emitting 8 tonnes of co2 and 12 people in the developing world emitting 5 tonnes of co2 for a total of 124 tonnes of co2.
This isn’t to let western countries and their lifestyles off the hook, or that developing countries don’t have a right to increase their standard of living like the west did, just saying populations stagnating or decreasing won’t necessarily help climate change.
But the future population predictions for Africa, are also being slashed.
Sort of. They are saying that the rate at which it is levelling off is inconsequential for the environmental effect. However, the rate is enough to have economic impacts already. It’s not that they don’t acknowledge it, they are just saying we can see the economic damage long before well see the environmental benefits.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=LBudghsdByQ
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.