Another argument supporting Betty Seagull's point is that the world's fifteen richest countries are not maintaining their population. Those citizens contribute the most to the carbon emissions. Fewer of those citizens might help.
Elizabeth Seagull makes an interesting point. A slippery downward slide in population depends on an uncertain future -- an affluent Africa, in particular -- and until that time the population will continue to rise, exacerbating the climate crisis. So, until the future is more certain, perhaps we should stop encouraging more babies.
I'm still not ready to worry about this. I'm currently reading, The Heat Will Kill You First, by Jeff Goodell. He says, "...the world population is projected to grow from 8 billion today to nearly 10 billion by 2050. To meet the expected demand for food by midcentury alone, global agricultural output will have to rise by more than 50 percent." (p. 125) With the climate crisis now upon us, agriculture is already being disrupted--one study found that "global crop production today is 21 percent lower than it would have been without climate change. The losses were higher for warm regions..." (p. 126). We may have trouble feeding the people we have, without adding more. Climate change feels more urgent to me than any other problem other than the immediate threat to our own democracy. In the temperate regions we can expect a lot more climate migrants heading north, as the hotter parts of the world become uninhabitable by humans. We have to figure out how to open our doors and our hearts to people from the warmer regions of the world.
I don't think we disagree. No one I cite wants to increase the population. As far as I know, all of them would be comfortable with a smaller population -- if it were stable. The worry is about continual decline, an unstoppable slide. It's oddly parallel to what's happening with the climate: If we knew that this summer (2023) would be repeated every year, we could adjust to it. But the horror is that each year will be harsher than the one before, and it will be harder to deal with what is constantly changing. A stable population would have an easier time dealing with the climate than a population which is smaller every year, and in which the old-to-young proportion is more top-heavy every year.
No one can reliably predict the population future, especially at the global level. But what we know suggests the worrying, but interesting, possibility I've described. And the solutions that have been proposed -- basically a better work-life balance -- would be welcome on many grounds.
You and I would certainly agree at least on this: A population that is smaller as well as relatively stable would be best.
Another argument supporting Betty Seagull's point is that the world's fifteen richest countries are not maintaining their population. Those citizens contribute the most to the carbon emissions. Fewer of those citizens might help.
Elizabeth Seagull makes an interesting point. A slippery downward slide in population depends on an uncertain future -- an affluent Africa, in particular -- and until that time the population will continue to rise, exacerbating the climate crisis. So, until the future is more certain, perhaps we should stop encouraging more babies.
What do the rest of you think?
I agree with the lovely wish for loved babies, supported families, respected mothers, caring communities and sane policies.
I'm still not ready to worry about this. I'm currently reading, The Heat Will Kill You First, by Jeff Goodell. He says, "...the world population is projected to grow from 8 billion today to nearly 10 billion by 2050. To meet the expected demand for food by midcentury alone, global agricultural output will have to rise by more than 50 percent." (p. 125) With the climate crisis now upon us, agriculture is already being disrupted--one study found that "global crop production today is 21 percent lower than it would have been without climate change. The losses were higher for warm regions..." (p. 126). We may have trouble feeding the people we have, without adding more. Climate change feels more urgent to me than any other problem other than the immediate threat to our own democracy. In the temperate regions we can expect a lot more climate migrants heading north, as the hotter parts of the world become uninhabitable by humans. We have to figure out how to open our doors and our hearts to people from the warmer regions of the world.
I don't think we disagree. No one I cite wants to increase the population. As far as I know, all of them would be comfortable with a smaller population -- if it were stable. The worry is about continual decline, an unstoppable slide. It's oddly parallel to what's happening with the climate: If we knew that this summer (2023) would be repeated every year, we could adjust to it. But the horror is that each year will be harsher than the one before, and it will be harder to deal with what is constantly changing. A stable population would have an easier time dealing with the climate than a population which is smaller every year, and in which the old-to-young proportion is more top-heavy every year.
No one can reliably predict the population future, especially at the global level. But what we know suggests the worrying, but interesting, possibility I've described. And the solutions that have been proposed -- basically a better work-life balance -- would be welcome on many grounds.
You and I would certainly agree at least on this: A population that is smaller as well as relatively stable would be best.