Empty Planet

[Nakosis]

According to the United Nations, the world’s population reached seven billion in late 2011. For many, this landmark was seen as a clear sign of crisis: an indication that humans are reproducing unchecked, leading us into a future of increasing poverty, food shortages, conflict, and environmental degradation. But a growing group of demographers is convinced that the UN is wrong: the planet faces not a population bomb, but a population bust. For most of history, population decline has been the result of catastrophe—environmental events, famine, or disease. Now, however, fertility rates are falling for a different reason: we’re choosing to have fewer kids.

“In roughly three decades, the global population will begin to decline,” say Darrel Bricker and John Ibbitson in their new book EMPTY PLANET: The Shock of Global Population Decline. “Once that decline begins, it will never end.”
Empty Planet: Preparing for the Global Population Decline

The evidence given is that world nations have fallen below the replacement rate of each woman having 2.1 children. The world will reach a maximum population around 2050 of about 9 billion then it will start to decline.

The blame goes to urbanization. In rural settings children are a "blessing" because that means more hands to work the farm. In an urban setting, children are just another mouth to feed. So people as they urbanize are choosing to have less children for economic reasons.

Good for environmental reason, bad for economic reasons.

Fewer people means less economic growth. Fewer working age people having to support an aging population.

 

[SalixIncendium]

A planet without humans is "empty?" Do the other 9,999,999,999 species that inhabit the planet not count?

 

[Valjean]

View attachment 98941​

According to the United Nations, the world’s population reached seven billion in late 2011. For many, this landmark was seen as a clear sign of crisis: an indication that humans are reproducing unchecked, leading us into a future of increasing poverty, food shortages, conflict, and environmental degradation. But a growing group of demographers is convinced that the UN is wrong: the planet faces not a population bomb, but a population bust. For most of history, population decline has been the result of catastrophe—environmental events, famine, or disease. Now, however, fertility rates are falling for a different reason: we’re choosing to have fewer kids.

“In roughly three decades, the global population will begin to decline,” say Darrel Bricker and John Ibbitson in their new book EMPTY PLANET: The Shock of Global Population Decline. “Once that decline begins, it will never end.”
Empty Planet: Preparing for the Global Population Decline

The evidence given is that world nations have fallen below the replacement rate of each woman having 2.1 children. The world will reach a maximum population around 2050 of about 9 billion then it will start to decline.

The blame goes to urbanization. In rural settings children are a "blessing" because that means more hands to work the farm. In an urban setting, children are just another mouth to feed. So people as they urbanize are choosing to have less children for economic reasons.

Good for environmental reason, bad for economic reasons.

Fewer people means less economic growth. Fewer working age people having to support an aging population.

Economies are human constructs. They can be altered to fit conditions.
The environment is a product of millions of years. It's complex and fine-tuned. It supports all life on Earth -- including out own. It's not easily alterable without damaging it.

A smaller population would be good for everything in the long run. Bolstering a population already above the planet's carrying capacity trades short term gain for long term disaster.

 

[Twilight Hue]

View attachment 98941​

According to the United Nations, the world’s population reached seven billion in late 2011. For many, this landmark was seen as a clear sign of crisis: an indication that humans are reproducing unchecked, leading us into a future of increasing poverty, food shortages, conflict, and environmental degradation. But a growing group of demographers is convinced that the UN is wrong: the planet faces not a population bomb, but a population bust. For most of history, population decline has been the result of catastrophe—environmental events, famine, or disease. Now, however, fertility rates are falling for a different reason: we’re choosing to have fewer kids.

“In roughly three decades, the global population will begin to decline,” say Darrel Bricker and John Ibbitson in their new book EMPTY PLANET: The Shock of Global Population Decline. “Once that decline begins, it will never end.”
Empty Planet: Preparing for the Global Population Decline

The evidence given is that world nations have fallen below the replacement rate of each woman having 2.1 children. The world will reach a maximum population around 2050 of about 9 billion then it will start to decline.

The blame goes to urbanization. In rural settings children are a "blessing" because that means more hands to work the farm. In an urban setting, children are just another mouth to feed. So people as they urbanize are choosing to have less children for economic reasons.

Good for environmental reason, bad for economic reasons.

Fewer people means less economic growth. Fewer working age people having to support an aging population.

If I recall a few months ago, there were a lot of threads stating that we had too many people on this planet.

 

[Nakosis]

Economies are human constructs. They can be altered to fit conditions.
The environment is a product of millions of years. It's complex and fine-tuned. It supports all life on Earth -- including out own. It's not easily alterable without damaging it.

A smaller population would be good for everything in the long run. Bolstering a population already above the planet's carrying capacity trades short term gain for long term disaster.

The "experts" in this study generally agree with you. However, as I've often noted, humans suck at future predictions

 

[Valjean]

The "experts" in this study generally agree with you. However, as I've often noted, humans suck at future predictions

But we're really good at putting off inconvenient actions to avoid bad future consequences.
Eat, drink, and be merry....

 

[Nakosis]

If I recall a few months ago, there were a lot of threads stating that we had too many people on this planet.

Catastrophes tend to be less extreme than advertised however the fear caused by dire predictions have both political and religious benefits.

 

[Wu Wei]

I have often said the planet would be a nice place, if it wasn't for all the people

 

[Nakosis]

But we're really good at putting off inconvenient actions to avoid bad future consequences.
Eat, drink, and be merry....

If we can't find the time to be merry, I'm not sure what the point is.

 

[Tony B]

View attachment 98941​

According to the United Nations, the world’s population reached seven billion in late 2011. For many, this landmark was seen as a clear sign of crisis: an indication that humans are reproducing unchecked, leading us into a future of increasing poverty, food shortages, conflict, and environmental degradation. But a growing group of demographers is convinced that the UN is wrong: the planet faces not a population bomb, but a population bust. For most of history, population decline has been the result of catastrophe—environmental events, famine, or disease. Now, however, fertility rates are falling for a different reason: we’re choosing to have fewer kids.

“In roughly three decades, the global population will begin to decline,” say Darrel Bricker and John Ibbitson in their new book EMPTY PLANET: The Shock of Global Population Decline. “Once that decline begins, it will never end.”
Empty Planet: Preparing for the Global Population Decline

The evidence given is that world nations have fallen below the replacement rate of each woman having 2.1 children. The world will reach a maximum population around 2050 of about 9 billion then it will start to decline.

The blame goes to urbanization. In rural settings children are a "blessing" because that means more hands to work the farm. In an urban setting, children are just another mouth to feed. So people as they urbanize are choosing to have less children for economic reasons.

Good for environmental reason, bad for economic reasons.

Fewer people means less economic growth. Fewer working age people having to support an aging population.

How do you know the population of the planet is what they tell you it is? start counting the populations of the largest cities and I think you'll find that things aren't quite what is claimed, this is an agenda of course.

 

[Regiomontanus]

View attachment 98941​

According to the United Nations, the world’s population reached seven billion in late 2011. For many, this landmark was seen as a clear sign of crisis: an indication that humans are reproducing unchecked, leading us into a future of increasing poverty, food shortages, conflict, and environmental degradation. But a growing group of demographers is convinced that the UN is wrong: the planet faces not a population bomb, but a population bust. For most of history, population decline has been the result of catastrophe—environmental events, famine, or disease. Now, however, fertility rates are falling for a different reason: we’re choosing to have fewer kids.

“In roughly three decades, the global population will begin to decline,” say Darrel Bricker and John Ibbitson in their new book EMPTY PLANET: The Shock of Global Population Decline. “Once that decline begins, it will never end.”
Empty Planet: Preparing for the Global Population Decline

The evidence given is that world nations have fallen below the replacement rate of each woman having 2.1 children. The world will reach a maximum population around 2050 of about 9 billion then it will start to decline.

The blame goes to urbanization. In rural settings children are a "blessing" because that means more hands to work the farm. In an urban setting, children are just another mouth to feed. So people as they urbanize are choosing to have less children for economic reasons.

Good for environmental reason, bad for economic reasons.

Fewer people means less economic growth. Fewer working age people having to support an aging population.

The problem, IMHO, is not necessarily the population but how our finite resources are used/allocated.

The problem is mass consumption and capitalism. Socialism is our only hope.

Monthly Review | Why Socialism?

Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.… Clarity about the aims and…

monthlyreview.org

 

[Stevicus]

View attachment 98941​

According to the United Nations, the world’s population reached seven billion in late 2011. For many, this landmark was seen as a clear sign of crisis: an indication that humans are reproducing unchecked, leading us into a future of increasing poverty, food shortages, conflict, and environmental degradation. But a growing group of demographers is convinced that the UN is wrong: the planet faces not a population bomb, but a population bust. For most of history, population decline has been the result of catastrophe—environmental events, famine, or disease. Now, however, fertility rates are falling for a different reason: we’re choosing to have fewer kids.

“In roughly three decades, the global population will begin to decline,” say Darrel Bricker and John Ibbitson in their new book EMPTY PLANET: The Shock of Global Population Decline. “Once that decline begins, it will never end.”
Empty Planet: Preparing for the Global Population Decline

The evidence given is that world nations have fallen below the replacement rate of each woman having 2.1 children. The world will reach a maximum population around 2050 of about 9 billion then it will start to decline.

The blame goes to urbanization. In rural settings children are a "blessing" because that means more hands to work the farm. In an urban setting, children are just another mouth to feed. So people as they urbanize are choosing to have less children for economic reasons.

Good for environmental reason, bad for economic reasons.

Fewer people means less economic growth. Fewer working age people having to support an aging population.

Urbanization is one part of the blame, but urbanization is merely the result of industrialism. The thing about industrialism is that, among other things, it was considered as making human life easier and better. And for the most part, this has been true. As a result, human populations have risen exponentially, and there have been noticeable environmental consequences to what we've done to the earth over the past 100-200 years.

I remember when there were many concerns the "population bomb" back in the 70s, and maybe we should have listened back then.

The opening sequence of "Soylent Green" illustrates the problem at hand:

 

[Tony B]

View attachment 98941​

The problem, IMHO, is not necessarily the population but how our finite resources are used/allocated.

The problem is mass consumption and capitalism. Socialism is our only hope.

Monthly Review | Why Socialism?

Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.… Clarity about the aims and…

monthlyreview.org

Unfortunately Technocracy is what we're going to get, until it is destroyed of course.

 

[Revoltingest]

v​

Fewer people means less economic growth. Fewer working age people having to support an aging population.

But it also means fewer working age people
growing old to become a burden on others.
Growth without limit is impossible.
Belief that expansion is necessary for economic
health is false.

 

[Alien826]

But it also means fewer working age people
growing old to become a burden on others.
Growth without limit is impossible.
Belief that expansion is necessary for economic
health is false.

Yes. As old people die off the balance of young to old will settle down again. Of course we do live a lot longer now, so some adjustments may be needed, though the growth of productivity that has occurred since say the 1950's should make us wonder why it's necessary.

 

[Valjean]

If we can't find the time to be merry, I'm not sure what the point is.

I'm mocking those who enjoy themselves with no thought of or preparation for the future.

'Eat, Drink and Be Merry', Meaning & Context

“Eat, drink and be merry” is a much-used English idiom, popular particularly among young people. It suggests the carefree attitude of young people intent on an enjoyable life

nosweatshakespeare.com

 

[Heyo]

View attachment 98941​

According to the United Nations, the world’s population reached seven billion in late 2011. For many, this landmark was seen as a clear sign of crisis: an indication that humans are reproducing unchecked, leading us into a future of increasing poverty, food shortages, conflict, and environmental degradation. But a growing group of demographers is convinced that the UN is wrong: the planet faces not a population bomb, but a population bust. For most of history, population decline has been the result of catastrophe—environmental events, famine, or disease. Now, however, fertility rates are falling for a different reason: we’re choosing to have fewer kids.

“In roughly three decades, the global population will begin to decline,” say Darrel Bricker and John Ibbitson in their new book EMPTY PLANET: The Shock of Global Population Decline. “Once that decline begins, it will never end.”
Empty Planet: Preparing for the Global Population Decline

The evidence given is that world nations have fallen below the replacement rate of each woman having 2.1 children. The world will reach a maximum population around 2050 of about 9 billion then it will start to decline.

The blame goes to urbanization. In rural settings children are a "blessing" because that means more hands to work the farm. In an urban setting, children are just another mouth to feed. So people as they urbanize are choosing to have less children for economic reasons.

Good for environmental reason, bad for economic reasons.

Fewer people means less economic growth. Fewer working age people having to support an aging population.

If humans are anything like rats or mice, they may be right. A famous experiment is Universe 25, in which a population of mice collapsed without external limiting factors.
The question is whether we are in such a scenario. We have limiting factors and the limits are sinking due to overexploitation. Other experiments show different outcomes. The most optimistic one is a logistic growth, in which a population, after initial exponential growth, approaches a carrying capacity asymptotically. That is unlikely, as we already have overshot carrying capacity.
More likely are the collapse scenario and a scenario where, after a severe reduction, the population grows again exponentially and enters a phase of chaotic growth and decline.
I think the latter is more likely. After the global collapse, if only one isolated population of at least 3000 individuals remains and is not effected by the behavioural sink, repopulation is guaranteed.

 

[Tomef]

View attachment 98941​

According to the United Nations, the world’s population reached seven billion in late 2011. For many, this landmark was seen as a clear sign of crisis: an indication that humans are reproducing unchecked, leading us into a future of increasing poverty, food shortages, conflict, and environmental degradation. But a growing group of demographers is convinced that the UN is wrong: the planet faces not a population bomb, but a population bust. For most of history, population decline has been the result of catastrophe—environmental events, famine, or disease. Now, however, fertility rates are falling for a different reason: we’re choosing to have fewer kids.

“In roughly three decades, the global population will begin to decline,” say Darrel Bricker and John Ibbitson in their new book EMPTY PLANET: The Shock of Global Population Decline. “Once that decline begins, it will never end.”
Empty Planet: Preparing for the Global Population Decline

The evidence given is that world nations have fallen below the replacement rate of each woman having 2.1 children. The world will reach a maximum population around 2050 of about 9 billion then it will start to decline.

The blame goes to urbanization. In rural settings children are a "blessing" because that means more hands to work the farm. In an urban setting, children are just another mouth to feed. So people as they urbanize are choosing to have less children for economic reasons.

Good for environmental reason, bad for economic reasons.

Fewer people means less economic growth. Fewer working age people having to support an aging population.

Never say never.

Announcements of doom appear every now and then, the content depending on what the current perceived crisis is. It’s as if crises are surprising, as if the whole of human history hasn't been a lurch from one crisis to the next, over and over again.

 

[Nakosis]

The problem, IMHO, is not necessarily the population but how our finite resources are used/allocated.

The problem is mass consumption and capitalism. Socialism is our only hope.

Monthly Review | Why Socialism?

Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.… Clarity about the aims and…

monthlyreview.org

I'm not sure socialism would fix anything. Changing the economic system isn't going to stop people from being self-centered.
Socialism promises a sense of unity I don't see it necessarily creating one though, any more than capitalism.

That sense of unity has to come from somewhere else. Capitalism + a sense of unity works fine. Socialism absent the necessary unity is no better than capitalism without it.

 

[Regiomontanus]

I'm not sure socialism would fix anything. Changing the economic system isn't going to stop people from being self-centered.
Socialism promises a sense of unity I don't see it necessarily creating one though, any more than capitalism.

That sense of unity has to come from somewhere else. Capitalism + a sense of unity works fine. Socialism absent the necessary unity is no better than capitalism without it.

Capitalism requires/depends on growth and mass consumption. Those things are destroying the biosphere.