this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
478 points (99.4% liked)

World News

39127 readers
2954 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

My immediate response is that this is clearly good news - a gradual reduction in population is a good thing. We just need to work on managing the societal practicalities properly

[–] ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Reductions in population will happen after the climate change issues go unresolved when they needed to be, and resource scarcity forces an economic global crisis never seen in modern history. It won’t be gradual. Every pop model predicts going from 10B to 1B in less than 100 years post vertex. Or at least it seems if we stay on the track we are on.

[–] _bac@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

any references for said models?

[–] ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/09/learning/whats-going-on-in-this-graph-nov-15-2023.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Bunch of models on one chart there. The dark red line is if all rates of fertility were the same as the US. The other lines are other global models.

[–] sadreality@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Yes young people not being able to afford families is a good thing!

Fuck 'em, old people got to finish this circus with a bang.

[–] JackOfAllTraits@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I usualy write a hefty reply on why this is not good news, but InTheNutshell did it better https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBudghsdByQ

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Kurzgesagt videos are usually excellent, but in this case the case for population reduction benefits to the environment are simply dismissed with ‘it will take too long for global population to fall’. This is a weirdly trite line in an otherwise nuanced video, ignoring the fact that populations don’t have to decline to improve things - a simple levelling off is beneficial. Moreover, it ignores that most reductions are taking place in countries with the highest per capita carbon emissions

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Moreover, it ignores that most reductions are taking place in countries with the highest per capita carbon emissions

Yes but those are also the countries with stagnating or decreasing emissions per capita, while the ones with rising emissions are also increasing in population. These compounding factors can cancel each other out when looking at net emissions.

Let's say right now we have 10 people from the u.s. emitting 10 tonnes of co2 and 10 people from the developing work emitting 1 tonne of co2, for a total of 110 tonnes of co2.

Now let's say in 50 years we now have 8 people in the u.s. emitting 8 tonnes of co2 and 12 people in the developing world emitting 5 tonnes of co2 for a total of 124 tonnes of co2.

This isn't to let western countries and their lifestyles off the hook, or that developing countries don't have a right to increase their standard of living like the west did, just saying populations stagnating or decreasing won't necessarily help climate change.

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

But the future population predictions for Africa, are also being slashed.

[–] TheFonz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Sort of. They are saying that the rate at which it is levelling off is inconsequential for the environmental effect. However, the rate is enough to have economic impacts already. It's not that they don't acknowledge it, they are just saying we can see the economic damage long before well see the environmental benefits.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://www.piped.video/watch?v=LBudghsdByQ

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.