Extinction Rebellion

[Scot Dutchy]

Reduce the world population.

[Brian Peacock]

OK. So what do we do... depopulate Africa or something and that will save the planet? State enforced sterilisation? A global one-child policy or pregnancy lottery? And that will allow us to continue consuming in the same way we are now? But where's the economic growth going to come from? Capitalism needs markets and consumers as well as access to resources.

You're still thinking that the current political-economic paradigm can salve the problems that have been caused by the current political-economic paradigm.

[pErvinalia]

Colonise Mars. It's the only answer.

[Scot Dutchy]

That was very tongue in cheek from me Brian.

Capitalism cant live with a balanced economic system which is why it is destroying the environment. The requirement to constantly increase profits means the total lack of stability. The whole Bitcoin bubble is a typical example. Until people can be satisfied with a basic life style and requiring increasing luxury things wont change.

[Alan B]

In 2018 the total births were about 2.6 times the total deaths (149,204,000 v 57.625,000). Reducing the birth rate to a tenth will reduce the world population to about 4.4 billion in 100 years. Has anyone told ER not have any babies?

Now, if we were to introduce euthanasia (in the 'developed' countries - since they produce the most pollution) at, say, 65/70 (except me and members of this illustrious forum ), then that night solve the problem...

Try this site: UN Population Statistics. Full of downloadable spreadsheets detailing births/deaths/population by country and age.

[Scot Dutchy]

What was that film where they blew a horn or something where the oldies were called to be bumped off?

[Alan B]

Soylent Green? That was where the oldies bodies were being used as a food source...

(Edward G. Robinson's last film).

[NineBerry]

Soylent Green was the movie where the elderly are turned into food. But I think the horn bit is from the Time Machine movie.

[Alan B]

Ah, yes. The Time Machine. That was the one.

[Scot Dutchy]

That's it Nine thanks.

[Brian Peacock]

In 2018 the total births were about 2.6 times the total deaths (149,204,000 v 57.625,000). Reducing the birth rate to a tenth will reduce the world population to about 4.4 billion in 100 years. Has anyone told ER not have any babies?

Now, if we were to introduce euthanasia (in the 'developed' countries - since they produce the most pollution) at, say, 65/70 (except me and members of this illustrious forum ), then that night solve the problem...

Try this site: UN Population Statistics. Full of downloadable spreadsheets detailing births/deaths/population by country and age.

Population numbers are misleading and the issues those those numbers often throw up suffer with starting from certain assumptions - most of which we've discussed before Alan.

It's natural to think that we can't continue with this current level of environmental and resource pressure, let alone see it increase, but if the answer is "There's too many people" then the question is usually "How can we (us, you, me) carry on exactly as we have been?"

The 'cure' for "There's too many people" is usually to point at the poorer regions of the World and bemoan the fact that 'they' are having too many children for the sustainability of 'our' present lifestyles. The other 'cure' is to apply a kind of one-in-one-out-ethic where we push the elderly into the Soylent machine at one end to make room for the kids at the other.

Perhaps a more rational examination of environmental and resource pressures is one focused on a nation's or region's environmental impact per capita rather than on the raw numbers of people, births or deaths etc.

[Seabass]

We should feed Republicans to people in developing nations. This would lower population, lower resource consumption per person, and provide a valuable source of protein to poor, malnourished people. It's a win-win-win.

[Rum]

I’m really very puzzled as to why population reduction isn’t a much higher priority for governments, NGOs and the like. Perhaps it’s the short term nature of most government policies or simply that it is too tough a goal to contemplate. Reducing the population with relatively little disruption to the social fabric of most societies would contribute a lot to addressing to some of the challenges we face.

[Brian Peacock]

I’m really very puzzled as to why population reduction isn’t a much higher priority for governments, NGOs and the like. Perhaps it’s the short term nature of most government policies or simply that it is too tough a goal to contemplate. Reducing the population with relatively little disruption to the social fabric of most societies would contribute a lot to addressing to some of the challenges we face.

How do we achieve it and where do we start?

[Joe]

We should feed Republicans to people in developing nations. This would lower population, lower resource consumption per person, and provide a valuable source of protein to poor, malnourished people. It's a win-win-win.

Except it may transmit Mad Elephant disease.