• HeartyBeast@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • sadreality@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

        • Not_mikey@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • TheFonz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.