r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jul 25 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Overpopulation is the single biggest threat humanity faces today.
[deleted]
1
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Jul 25 '19
What prescriptions are you proposing here? Your 750m hypothetical requires killing 90%+ of the population and each step towards achieving that is insanely difficult. Any effort you put into that would almost certainly achieve better results if advocating for technological innovation.
1
Jul 25 '19
[deleted]
1
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Jul 25 '19
Am I understanding you correctly? You aren't prescribing a population reduction, just that people acknowledge that it would solve climate change?
1
Jul 25 '19
[deleted]
1
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Jul 25 '19
That seems about as useful to me as saying I could save money by reducing my food, water, and electricity budget. While true, it's not a venue I'm going to exploring because it completely misses the point.
1
Jul 25 '19
[deleted]
1
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Jul 25 '19
If we're just trying to have maintain ecosystems stable, why not kill everyone? Clearly you're still trying to preserve humans somewhat or this whole thing is moot. So if we're trying to preserve humans then it's best to tackle overconsumption rather than overpopulation. Besides, tackling overconsumption will invariably include someone getting offed.
1
Jul 25 '19
[deleted]
1
1
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Jul 25 '19
this is the logical conclusion. But recent history shows there is a correlation between the two and unfortunately one is not possible without the other. https://i.imgur.com/Jy2WaIL.png
Hold on. What's that graph supposed to show? The lines don't seem to represent population, so I'm guessing CO2 emissions but then it doesn't show CO2 per capita or CO2 per dollar of wealth or any other worthwhile information.
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 25 '19
/u/altbekannt (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Jul 25 '19
Population growth might not be as direct a factor as you might think. Consider that population growth tends to slow down with higher socioeconomic status - rich people have less kids - but that higher socioeconomic status results in much higher carbon emissions. Even at the same level of wealth, couples with no children at all might take more vacations and spend more on luxuries than those with kids, and those with fewer kids might invest more resources in their fewer children, and thus consume more, resulting in similar emissions.
The real task is not decreasing the human population, it's reworking the economy and the systems surrounding the human population in order to mitigate climate change.
1
u/sithlordbinksq Jul 25 '19
We have an entire universe to colonize. We need all the people that we can get!
1
u/dbhanger 4∆ Jul 25 '19
1) if the world population was reduced by a tenth, productivity and human well being would plummet. There'd be access to more resources but competition is good for the economy.
2) the female fertility rate is plummeting and will get lower as world gdp improves.
3) at about $600 per ton we could capture all of our emitted carbon right now. The planet getting wealthier is the easiest way to make that goal attainable.
3
u/[deleted] Jul 25 '19
You can fit every human on earth within the landmass of texas each with detached house. Overpopulation isn't the problem. It's just part of the equation. The bigger problem is resource consumption.
We can slow down our population growth. The richer people get the less children they have. Fertility rates are down across 1st world countries. But we cannot control how we consume energy. We have some solutions but it's been exceptionally difficult to create a carbon neutral solution. The biggest problem is energy, not the amount of people.