|
|
|
|
|
|
by bheadmaster
1312 days ago
|
|
|
> You imply that population will increase indefinitely You imply that it won't. I don't see a fundamental reason why humans would stop at 8 billion - yeah, currently, (my hypothesis is that) the world is kind of shit, so people stopped procreating due to stress. However, there's no reason to think that people won't procreate once the world becomes a better place to live. > or that degrowth needs to happen forever Assuming population keeps growing (which I see no fundamental reason to doubt will happen eventually), degrowth needs to happen forever in order to keep the consumption from growing - basic math: total consumption = number of people * avg. consumption per person
To keep total consumption constant, avg. consumption per person needs to decrease proportionally to the increase of the number of people.> Also, slippery slope argument. Not a real counter-argument. |
|
|
How? Though, I am certain that it won't grow indefinitely on earth.
> I don't see a fundamental reason why humans would stop at 8 billion
It can stop at 9 billion and still not grow indefinitely. Currently a peak of 11 billion and no more than 12 billion is estimated. As said. Because of increased living standards.
> To keep total consumption constant, avg. consumption per person needs to decrease proportionally to the increase of the number of people.
It better to decrease proportionally with a coefficient smaller than 1 and bigger than 0 than decrease consumption not at all.
> Not a real counter-argument.
Yes, it is, because it implies a logical fallacy.