[sunseb]

Just a quick question: why Greta is not talking about world overpopulation? I think it's a huge problem. The more we are on this planet, the more mess we make. And by the way, it's too easy to shame western countries to be the root of all evil in this world.

[Isinlor]

Because there is no world overpopulation. People talk about overpopulation since ancient times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation#History_o...

Currently standard of living are growing almost all over the world and human population is predicted to pick and stabilize at around 11 billion.

I really recommend "DON'T PANIC — Hans Rosling showing the facts about population" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E

What's also interesting in his video is the fact that people tend to be very misinformed about state of the world affairs. E.g. when asked questions about certain statistics, they do worse than random. And the better educated you are the more misinformed you may be.

[DuskStar]

What would be "overpopulation" by your definition? No way to grow enough food, resulting in mass famines? No physical space for people, even after tiling the planet with skyscrapers?

Or would "unsustainable carbon emissions and ecological damage" be enough? And if that's enough, aren't we already there today?

[Isinlor]

I would accept decline in more than 1% of world population over 10 year time span caused by ecological collapse as overpopulation.

But the important question is what would you do about possibility of overpopulation however it is defined?

If you want to invest in health care and education in Africa - awesome! You have my full support. For example educating woman has excellent side effect of reducing fertility rate.

If you think about enforcing population restrictions, then you should think harder. How do you imagine that would look like on a global scale if you can't get USA to stick to Paris Climate accord? Some country with nuclear weapons threatening mutual assured destruction if some other country doesn't stick to 1 kid policy? Ridiculous.

[viklove]

If the global population was still 2 billion as in the early 1900s, I'm certain we wouldn't have a climate crisis anywhere near the scale we're seeing today. We should be panicking, and I don't understand why our population should be allowed to grow until the Earth literally cannot sustain it. We're an intelligent and evolved species, and we'd all be better off exercising some self-control and keeping our population in check.

And yes, I would gladly give up my right to procreate. I have no interest in having children, primarily because I believe it's a terrible thing to do in today's world.

[Isinlor]

Predicted population growth will have little to do with emission growth, because most of population growth will be happening in places where people don't have even access to electricity.

We, you and I, the top 10% richest people in the world are responsible for 50% of global emissions. Population of my home country is declining rapidly, I bet yours home country is as well.

Also let me ask you a nasty question, why should your right to exists trump someone else right to have children? Why don't you leave and make space for 10 children that will be born somewhere in Africa, that will probably emit less CO2 during their whole life than you already did?

[viklove]

> why should your right to exists

I'm not claiming I have a right to exist. In fact, that was the thesis of my comment, so you may want to work on your reading comprehension. You're the only one claiming anyone has a right to exist (or a right to be born). In my opinion your rights only exist after you are born, meaning no person should have the right to procreate.

[Isinlor]

You missed the second part of my question, but let's put that aside. As I said it's a nasty question.

So, I think more productive question would be: How would you take away people right to procreate?

How do you imagine doing that if you can't get USA to stick to Paris Climate accord?

If you want to invest in health care and education in Africa - awesome! You have my full support. For example educating woman has excellent side effect of reducing fertility rate without taking any of their rights.

[viklove]

I'm not claiming I have a good way to implement my proposition, I'm just trying to convince people that my proposition would be in the best interest of the human species. Maybe if we can convince enough people we can find a politician/leader who can make it happen :)

[papermachete]

If we're going the totalitarian route, why not designate kids and force them to grow up to be scientists. Make them work for minimal wage on what are today billion dollar R&D, all for finding a solution to the so-called crisis? After all, human procreation is a naturally occuring event and it is the failure of science to produce a solution for the consequences and politicians - to adopt it.

[viklove]

> After all, human procreation is a naturally occuring event and it is the failure of science to produce a solution for the consequences and politicians - to adopt it.

Yes, the solution is to stop thinking of procreation as a naturally occurring event and to instead limit each person to 1 living offspring (so each couple can produce 2 children). By the way, science doesn't provide solutions (that's engineering). Science only provides explanations.

[AnimalMuppet]

First: I question that you have the authority to "limit" people in this way.

Second: How do you propose to enforce your limitation?

[papermachete]

>the solution is

I'm sorry are you a politician or an authority figure?

>1

How did you measure the optimal number to be 1? And how would you value an ethnic minority to be just as valuable as the majority? Don't you support greater minority birth rates at the expense of the majority?

>explanations

No, that's philosophy. Granted, I haven't encountered a reproducible study on climate change, the scientific method proves or disproves hypotheses to provide a baseline of knowledge. The scientific method is how scientists develop early-stage solutions to climate change, not building contraptions.

[viklove]

> Don't you support greater minority birth rates at the expense of the majority?

Frankly, I don't care what the relative birth rates are between "minorities" and "majorities." By the way, which metric are you using to define minority? Is it height? Nose size? Personality type? I'm guessing it's just race, which is a very narrow criteria, but that's the only the criteria respected by the modern definition of "diversity."

> No, that's philosophy.

Erm... no. Science can give us an explanation for what is causing climate change, and even how quickly climate change is occurring, but designing a solution to it is firmly in the domain of engineering.

Anyway, that's all semantics. As to how I came up with the "1" number is really pretty straightforward though. That number will prevent the population from growing or shrinking -- it will maintain the current number. Isn't that obvious?

[monkeynotes]

Probably because the subject attacks the fundamental instinct to procreate. How do you tell a couple that they legally can't have children? Many of my friends define their lives around having a family, it gives people a deep, and rewarding purpose.

[serf]

>Many of my friends define their lives around having a family, it gives people a deep, and rewarding purpose.

Speaking as bluntly as I can here : if you want to have kids to gain a 'deep and rewarding purpose' because you somehow feel lacking in purpose, please don't have children.

It's analogous to a teenager that joins the military out of high school because "they don't know what they want to do.".

Figure things out, then make a decision. Don't make some big brash decision in order to figure things out. The only 'depth' that might added to your life may actually just be unenjoyable complexity and nuance.

[etrautmann]

The deep and rewarding purpose necessarily must be separated from the carrying capacity of the world. There are plenty of families with 12+ kids, but this clearly isn't something that would be possible to sustain for all couples.

This is a fundamental tragedy of the commons. I feel guilty about even wanting to have two kids at some point due to the climate impact. Everywhere I look I see people having large families without caring. This has to be balanced long term for our species (and others) to survive centuries from now.

[sunseb]

You are right and I must say it's ok to have kids in the US or in Europa (because population growth is declining here), but I am talking about Africa or South Asia, as they are having more and more kids there, and all these kids end up living in extreme poverty and having no hope for the future. For example, each year, Nigeria has 6 millions more people to feed (Nigerian women have an average of 5.5 children).

[securingsincity]

Most of the world is having only 2 kids per family. The most consistent way to reduce the number of children per family is to increase the income of that family.

https://www.gapminder.org/answers/will-saving-poor-children-...

https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$state$marker$axis_x$domain...

[thelazydogsback]

Agreed. At some point we have to realize that as a species we don't all have the "right" to reproduce as much as we want. Technically the earth together with technology should be able to support quite a bit more population, but given that we're not willing to make any sacrifices in the behavior of the living, limiting growth until we do is the other option. But telling someone they can't make babies is the only thing worse for a politician than saying you can't drive your big-ass car around or consume and throw away all the crap you like...

[monkeynotes]

At least telling people not to drive big cars and consume leaves increasingly more people feeling good about themselves.

[thibran]

> ... not talking about world overpopulation?

Because its not an issue any more. The world wide population is stabilizing. Most countries of the earth will face a population collapse in the next 30 years.

[jansan]

Sorry, this is bullshit. Even the UN estimates slowing growth for the next 80 years, but not a "collapse" or anything near that. And historically growth projections have been to low, so there is a fair chance the world population will continue to grow substantially for the next 100 years.

[Miner49er]

It's certainly possible to keep population growing at the rate it is and still end global warming.

Is it harder? Sure. But it's possible. More people is more labor to fix things. The labor just needs to be used correctly, and consumption needs to be reduced and changed.

Talking about overpopulation and "shaming Western countries" sounds a bit like a Trojan horse for some racist policies, considering that population is growing the most in non-western countries.

[jansan]

The labor just needs to be used correctly, and consumption needs to be reduced and changed.

IMHO the opposite is happening. Former developing countries are raising their living standards dramatically, which inevitably results in a larger economic footprint per capita. Also, migration to developed countries usually increases the living standard of the migrants, but this also increases their economic footprint. I just do not see where consumption is being reduced.

[hashberry]

"How dare you have more than two children?" It's easier to blame capitalism and lecture to politicians instead of poor third-world families.