It’s all fine and good for John Kerry to utter a fundamental truth about a major driver of climate catastrophe, but it is a useless proclamation without offering a solution.
Have enough tipping points been breached that there are no prescriptions to offer?
You must log in or register to comment.
Losing 3 billion people would destroy the global economy. Capitalist economy needs constant growth to survive.
Capitalist economy needs constant growth to survive.
Well, do I have some bad news for you! The world population isn’t projected to peak until 2080, but the U.S. population is projected to peak in 2052 (<30 years). We have one generation to figure out the alchemy of prosperity under population stagnation.
FWIW: there’s nothing written in stone that says you must have growth to sustain capitalism. A shrinking labor pool can be replaced with improved efficiency (i.e.: AI & automation). A shrinking consumer base can be replaced with increased per-capita consumption (i.e.: more consumerism). Love it or hate it, capitalism in an extremely adaptable system that will readily adapt to changing tides – necessity is the mother of invention.
Get rid of the taxes and the growth requirements are way down. Technology seems to have stabilized and we are now realizing that the whole internet boom was a bubble.
I don’t really have feelings towards it. Your analysis is obscured by rose-colored glasses.
Alarmist headlines frame population declines in certain countries as a “demographic timebomb.” Governments respond with pronatalist incentives for large families and/or laws restricting abortion and contraceptives.
Hey, just want to throw out there that discussing abortion rights in the same breath you are talking about global population control probably isn’t the greatest of ideas.
Has anyone mentioned immigration? What about welfare? Removing those would help a great deal. So would my personal favorite solution, which is putting wolf habitats in the middle of cities so that they eat the weak.
I don’t know why this is getting downvoted. It’s clearly satire, folks. I especially like the part about wolves. Can we do that?
Are there certain prescriptive measures surrounding climate catastrophe that should not be discussed? And if so, which ones and why not?
It’s well known that a warming climate reduces fertility and birth rate. It’s almost as if nature itself provides its own global population control.
Are there certain prescriptive measures surrounding climate catastrophe that should not be discussed? And if so, which ones and why not?
Yeah I think killing unborn children in the name of climate change is one of those things that we should leave off the table. Yep.
Dunno. Making abortion legal and possibly free worldwide means fewer unwanted humans.
Also, regulating any individual’s health needs are fraught with complexity and a waste of resources.
Regulation in general is too far from the locus of actual decision to be very precise. It’s better just to keep government and big corps out entirely.
Lmao, if you alarmists were right, the planet would already be dead, and Planet wouldn’t be able to sustain any life. That’s the bottom line.
I’ve been alive long enough to remember that you’ve changed the name and cause of your alarmism 3 different times, and said that the world was going to end 3 different times since I was little, and you’ve been wrong all 3 now… 4 times. 😂🤣 There is NO science to what you do. Nothing. I’m older than most if not all of you in this thread. So don’t argue. Stop lying to the world. Cause We’re all laughing at you.
How delightfully and intellectually astute of you to play the age card. I am cowed to submission by your ancient prowess.
