8 ms·

“We cannot hide away from human population growth, because it underlies so many of the other problems. All these things we talk about wouldn’t be a problem if t

“We cannot hide away from human population growth, because it underlies so many of the other problems. All these things we talk about wouldn’t be a problem if the world was the size of the population that there was 500 years ago.” -- Goodall at 2002 WEF panel discussion on Amazon rainforest The population 500 years ago was around 500 million. The only way we return to this level is de-industrialization. Paul Ehrlich wrote "The Population Bomb" almost 60 years ago - all of his predictions turned out to be dead wrong.

nntwozz 1y ago
Yeah I've seen this before, we could all drive V12s and eat only beef but it's not a very meaningful insight. We're going to stabilize around 10 billion by 2080 according to projections and then decline, hopefully reaching some kind of Star Trek utopia at some point. We came from the caves, we didn't know any better we just multiplied like a cancer. More population also brings more benefits, more geniuses more inventions etc. The trick is doing it without wars and inequality, good luck with that.
- dingnuts 1y ago
  > hopefully reaching some kind of Star Trek utopia at some point it is so dangerous and naive to think that utopia is possible, even if we all could agree that Star Trek is one, which we shall not, because I certainly do not think its depiction of watered down "luxury space communism with military ranks" is a desirable society.
  - jimbokun 1y ago
    That’s the real trouble with Utopia, differing ideas on what kind of Utopia we want.
  - spockz 1y ago
    The world/utopia as described in Star Trek is a world where there is no poverty and free electricity. You describe Starfleet. Obviously, the series do contain elitism. Joining Starfleet is seen as prestigious. And even on Earth there are slums during the time of the federation. So the “Utopia” is not complete. And Starfleet is necessary to protect the utopia from outside influences. It is largely based on the premise of having copious amounts basically free energy, free food (through replicators), safety, and a wide open universe for settlers to join when they do not want to stay in the Federation. Basically, it is based on the absence of contention of resources. Until we have that, either through shrinking or expansions of habitat, we will retain conflict.
    - mixmastamyk 1y ago
      Thank you Mr. Spockz.
- jimbokun 1y ago
  We have improved a lot on eliminating wars front. Inequality not so much but much progress has been made in eliminating abject poverty.
  - vkou 1y ago
    > We have improved a lot on eliminating wars front. Have we? After the nightmare of The War to End All Wars, did anyone in the mainstream honestly expect Europe to turn into an even bigger charnel house (~30-50 million dead) two decades later? It's been 80 years since then, and we've not had a 'large' industrialized war since then. But we have all been living under an atomic sword of Damocles. Do you think we're going to get to 200 years without that sword falling? What odds do you give on that (We've had many close calls since then)? How many people would die if it does fall? If in 2145, half a billion[1] people will die in nuclear fire, will we retroactively consider the brief stretch of history we live in to just be a brief ceasefire? --- [1] That would be a best case outcome for a nuclear war - a limited one, that wouldn't rise to the level of a global catastrophe.
- psunavy03 1y ago
  Utopia literally means "no place" for a reason. We're always going to be just what we are right now . . . humans.
- akavi 1y ago
  > We're going to stabilize around 10 billion by 2080 according to projections and then decline, hopefully reaching some kind of Star Trek utopia at some point. 10 billion is gonna be the high end by the looks of things, and that decline is going to be hardly conducive to utopia. The math of dependency ratios is inescapably painful.
- missedthecue 1y ago
  It's pretty clear we're not going to hit 10B At current trends, the global population will begin actively shrinking as soon as 2040, just 15 years away.
- jibal 1y ago
  Whatever subset of projections you're looking at seems to leave out any that take global warming into account.
dingnuts 1y ago
to advocate for the death of 8 billion people is a hell of a stance. there's pro genocide and then there's... I guess this is just hating the whole species.
- lIl-IIIl 1y ago
  I think she advocating for fewer births. The 8 billion deaths would eventually happen by themselves, most of them of old age.
  - ryandrake 1y ago
    In order to achieve this, though, we desperately need to get every country well below replacement-level fertility rate, and sustain that for a long, long time. Not sure it's possible, particularly when some political factions still consider "below replacement" to be a bad thing.
    - lIl-IIIl 1y ago
      It's happening though. Birthrate in many countries are below replacement rate, and birthrates in all countries have declined: https://www.economist.com/interactive/briefing/2025/09/11/humanity-will-shrink-far-sooner-than-you-think https://www.economist.com/interactive/briefing/2025/09/11/hu....
  - jacksnipe 1y ago
    She’s not doing either. In that same conversation, she goes on to talk about how we don’t live in that world and can’t return there, and what the implications should be for policy.
  - NoboruWataya 1y ago
    The thing is that if you depopulate by reducing the birth rate, you end up in a situation where you have a whole lot of old people and very few young people, which cannot be sustained.
    - 1y ago
lIl-IIIl 1y ago
Why?
jacksnipe 1y ago
If I’m not mistaken, she goes on to say “but we don’t live in that world, and so we must…” and goes on to argue for policy that doesn’t neglect the poorest and least fortunate members of society.
NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
>The only way we return to this level is de-industrialization. Unfortunately, we will return to that level. Then 25 years later, we'll be only half that number (or worse). >all of his predictions turned out to be dead wrong. Hilariously wrong, you mean. I especially like the ones about how the UK would be filled with cannibal savages by the 1980s, because everyone would be starving.
- Antibabelic 1y ago
  > Unfortunately, we will return to that level. Then 25 years later, we'll be only half that number (or worse). What are your main reasons for thinking that?
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
    There is a very simple metric, called "fertility rate". It is the average number of children born per woman over her entire lifetime. Since the male/female ratio in humans is nearly 1:1, she has to have 2 children (one to replace herself, one for the corresponding man) plus a tiny bit of extra... usually said to be about 2.1 children. If she has fewer than that, population is shrinking, each generation is smaller than the last. In China and other parts of East Asia (not just China, this isn't the One Child Policy and its effects), it's already at or below 1.0. Heading that way everywhere else. This isn't a prediction, it's already happening. And in Europe, in North America, everywhere but a few countries in Africa (and they're trending towards this too). This is real, I would say it can't be denied or ignored except most people are ignorant and in denial. Low fertility rates can become social norms, they do become social norms, and after that they never raise back to safe/healthy ones. Little children grow up thinking that having one child or no children at all is normal and they do not buck the trend when they become adults themselves. It's how humans become extinct.
    - californical 1y ago
      > It's how humans become extinct. Don’t you think it’s likely more of a pendulum? Maybe the equilibrium is 5-7 billion, and there are times when people have more kids, and times of fewer. Even if we drop to 3 billion, the world would find ways to go on, likely implementing policies that make big families more favorable again.
andrepd 1y ago
[flagged]
- boxerab 1y ago
  "freedom-hating vegan commie" - this is what is known as a straw man. Hopefully you will develop a little more nuance in your thinking.

nntwozz 1y ago

Yeah I've seen this before, we could all drive V12s and eat only beef but it's not a very meaningful insight. We're going to stabilize around 10 billion by 2080 according to projections and then decline, hopefully reaching some kind of Star Trek utopia at some point. We came from the caves, we didn't know any better we just multiplied like a cancer. More population also brings more benefits, more geniuses more inventions etc. The trick is doing it without wars and inequality, good luck with that.

dingnuts 1y ago
> hopefully reaching some kind of Star Trek utopia at some point it is so dangerous and naive to think that utopia is possible, even if we all could agree that Star Trek is one, which we shall not, because I certainly do not think its depiction of watered down "luxury space communism with military ranks" is a desirable society.
- jimbokun 1y ago
  That’s the real trouble with Utopia, differing ideas on what kind of Utopia we want.
- spockz 1y ago
  The world/utopia as described in Star Trek is a world where there is no poverty and free electricity. You describe Starfleet. Obviously, the series do contain elitism. Joining Starfleet is seen as prestigious. And even on Earth there are slums during the time of the federation. So the “Utopia” is not complete. And Starfleet is necessary to protect the utopia from outside influences. It is largely based on the premise of having copious amounts basically free energy, free food (through replicators), safety, and a wide open universe for settlers to join when they do not want to stay in the Federation. Basically, it is based on the absence of contention of resources. Until we have that, either through shrinking or expansions of habitat, we will retain conflict.
  - mixmastamyk 1y ago
    Thank you Mr. Spockz.
jimbokun 1y ago
We have improved a lot on eliminating wars front. Inequality not so much but much progress has been made in eliminating abject poverty.
- vkou 1y ago
  > We have improved a lot on eliminating wars front. Have we? After the nightmare of The War to End All Wars, did anyone in the mainstream honestly expect Europe to turn into an even bigger charnel house (~30-50 million dead) two decades later? It's been 80 years since then, and we've not had a 'large' industrialized war since then. But we have all been living under an atomic sword of Damocles. Do you think we're going to get to 200 years without that sword falling? What odds do you give on that (We've had many close calls since then)? How many people would die if it does fall? If in 2145, half a billion[1] people will die in nuclear fire, will we retroactively consider the brief stretch of history we live in to just be a brief ceasefire? --- [1] That would be a best case outcome for a nuclear war - a limited one, that wouldn't rise to the level of a global catastrophe.
psunavy03 1y ago
Utopia literally means "no place" for a reason. We're always going to be just what we are right now . . . humans.
akavi 1y ago
> We're going to stabilize around 10 billion by 2080 according to projections and then decline, hopefully reaching some kind of Star Trek utopia at some point. 10 billion is gonna be the high end by the looks of things, and that decline is going to be hardly conducive to utopia. The math of dependency ratios is inescapably painful.
missedthecue 1y ago
It's pretty clear we're not going to hit 10B At current trends, the global population will begin actively shrinking as soon as 2040, just 15 years away.
jibal 1y ago
Whatever subset of projections you're looking at seems to leave out any that take global warming into account.

dingnuts 1y ago

to advocate for the death of 8 billion people is a hell of a stance. there's pro genocide and then there's... I guess this is just hating the whole species.

lIl-IIIl 1y ago
I think she advocating for fewer births. The 8 billion deaths would eventually happen by themselves, most of them of old age.
- ryandrake 1y ago
  In order to achieve this, though, we desperately need to get every country well below replacement-level fertility rate, and sustain that for a long, long time. Not sure it's possible, particularly when some political factions still consider "below replacement" to be a bad thing.
  - lIl-IIIl 1y ago
    It's happening though. Birthrate in many countries are below replacement rate, and birthrates in all countries have declined: https://www.economist.com/interactive/briefing/2025/09/11/humanity-will-shrink-far-sooner-than-you-think https://www.economist.com/interactive/briefing/2025/09/11/hu....
- jacksnipe 1y ago
  She’s not doing either. In that same conversation, she goes on to talk about how we don’t live in that world and can’t return there, and what the implications should be for policy.
- NoboruWataya 1y ago
  The thing is that if you depopulate by reducing the birth rate, you end up in a situation where you have a whole lot of old people and very few young people, which cannot be sustained.
  - 1y ago

lIl-IIIl 1y ago

Why?

jacksnipe 1y ago

If I’m not mistaken, she goes on to say “but we don’t live in that world, and so we must…” and goes on to argue for policy that doesn’t neglect the poorest and least fortunate members of society.

NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago

>The only way we return to this level is de-industrialization. Unfortunately, we will return to that level. Then 25 years later, we'll be only half that number (or worse). >all of his predictions turned out to be dead wrong. Hilariously wrong, you mean. I especially like the ones about how the UK would be filled with cannibal savages by the 1980s, because everyone would be starving.

Antibabelic 1y ago
> Unfortunately, we will return to that level. Then 25 years later, we'll be only half that number (or worse). What are your main reasons for thinking that?
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
  There is a very simple metric, called "fertility rate". It is the average number of children born per woman over her entire lifetime. Since the male/female ratio in humans is nearly 1:1, she has to have 2 children (one to replace herself, one for the corresponding man) plus a tiny bit of extra... usually said to be about 2.1 children. If she has fewer than that, population is shrinking, each generation is smaller than the last. In China and other parts of East Asia (not just China, this isn't the One Child Policy and its effects), it's already at or below 1.0. Heading that way everywhere else. This isn't a prediction, it's already happening. And in Europe, in North America, everywhere but a few countries in Africa (and they're trending towards this too). This is real, I would say it can't be denied or ignored except most people are ignorant and in denial. Low fertility rates can become social norms, they do become social norms, and after that they never raise back to safe/healthy ones. Little children grow up thinking that having one child or no children at all is normal and they do not buck the trend when they become adults themselves. It's how humans become extinct.
  - californical 1y ago
    > It's how humans become extinct. Don’t you think it’s likely more of a pendulum? Maybe the equilibrium is 5-7 billion, and there are times when people have more kids, and times of fewer. Even if we drop to 3 billion, the world would find ways to go on, likely implementing policies that make big families more favorable again.

andrepd 1y ago

[flagged]

boxerab 1y ago
"freedom-hating vegan commie" - this is what is known as a straw man. Hopefully you will develop a little more nuance in your thinking.