[pooper]

Don't have to go that far. Choosing to not have children or choosing to have fewer children would be a good start.

From what I understand, taking better care of the children we have so they have a better chance to reach healthy adulthood is the best way to suppress child birth rates. I say we because parents don't own their children. The children belong to all of us, the community.

[Traubenfuchs]

That thought is considered sacrilegious for some reason. If we would just start shrinking back to healthy population levels, a lot of problems would disappear. But nooo, an impossible reduction of everyones climate footprint by 10% is offset within 10 years of population growth instead.

[TazeTSchnitzel]

One of the reasons that “overpopulation” as a concept faces criticism is that not all humans are created equal so far as resource consumption goes. Less people in the global north would do far more good for the climate than less people in the global south, because the former have a several times higher per capita consumption. Some of the people concerned about “overpopulation” seem to think the problem is the latter group though, and in that context the outcome of “depopulation” would be pleasing to fascists.

[nicoburns]

I live in the UK (and am in my late 20s), and I know quite a few people who are seriously considering not having children of their own (or in other cases reducing the number that thy would otherwise have) on the basis of overpopulation.

[martopix]

It's a mix of 'moral' feeling that you cannot tell people not to have kids, and of actual concern that our economic system is unfortunately founded on constant growth. It's much harder to grow the economy with fewer people.

[ztrww]

This will cause serious problems and many developed countries and also in China, especially when combined with increasing life expectancies.

[Accacin]

Isn't world population supposed to drop from now on?

[orwin]

If you believe world3 was correct, yes, we're nearing the decade where it happens, but this won't be by choice.

Basically our production+pollution seems to strain our renewable ressources more than our technological advances protect them. In most world3 scenarii it means a decrease in food production that lead to a population decrease.

It such a simple and interesting model, i find it sad that people tend to link it to 'the population bomb' which wasn't based on anything but gut feelings.

[dragonwriter]

“Supposed” by whom? UN projections are peaking near 11 billion around 2100, IIRC.