If you believe we can freely choose to do so on a global basis as a preventative measure, you are far more of an optimist than I am.
If you believe that things will get bad enough that we will be forced to do so, you might be more of a pessimist than I am.
Compared to freely choose to cut population numbers in half or even further, I think the problem of resource usage seems easier. It’s still a hard problem.
But maybe we don’t even have to cut energy consumption that much. Solar energy seem to get cheaper by 50% every 7 years. Batteries also seem to improve well.
I’m plugging in magic numbers because otherwise I’ll be misunderstood even worse. Maybe I’m wrong about that.
The problem with the magic numbers in that case is that the resulting theory doesn’t tell us very much about the utility of reducing human population by 5%. I wrote more about another issues in other posts.
For the most part, my emphasis is not on limiting population directly. I do believe that charitable efforts have the responsibility to mitigate the risk of a demographic trap in the areas they serve. But I think getting anybody who matters to listen is a lost cause.
My emphasis is on being conscious of the fact that the reason we’re still alive and prospering is that we are continuously buying ourselves more time with technology and use this insight to motivate greater investment in research and development. This seems like an easier sell.
I do believe that charitable efforts have the responsibility to mitigate the risk of a demographic trap in the areas they serve. But I think getting anybody who matters to listen is a lost cause.
The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation accounts for a good share of charity spending. They started by being very focused on the issue of reducing population.
They spent millions on the issue and have seen the empiric effects of their projects. To the extend that they don’t listen anymore to the kind of arguments that you are making is that they updated in face of empiric evidence.
Compared to freely choose to cut population numbers in half or even further, I think the problem of resource usage seems easier. It’s still a hard problem.
But maybe we don’t even have to cut energy consumption that much. Solar energy seem to get cheaper by 50% every 7 years. Batteries also seem to improve well.
The problem with the magic numbers in that case is that the resulting theory doesn’t tell us very much about the utility of reducing human population by 5%. I wrote more about another issues in other posts.
For the most part, my emphasis is not on limiting population directly. I do believe that charitable efforts have the responsibility to mitigate the risk of a demographic trap in the areas they serve. But I think getting anybody who matters to listen is a lost cause.
My emphasis is on being conscious of the fact that the reason we’re still alive and prospering is that we are continuously buying ourselves more time with technology and use this insight to motivate greater investment in research and development. This seems like an easier sell.
The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation accounts for a good share of charity spending. They started by being very focused on the issue of reducing population.
They spent millions on the issue and have seen the empiric effects of their projects. To the extend that they don’t listen anymore to the kind of arguments that you are making is that they updated in face of empiric evidence.