I wonder why more discussions about population control aren't seen.
It seems that fewer people will result in fewer pollutants.
back
2 comments
Population control is a very hard thing to discuss specially with the world's 2 largest religions completely opposed to it. The developed world ie most Western countries population would actually go down if not for immigration so devolping African countries where the largest population growth is expected would help but for that we would need to use more fossil fuels so increase carbon usage. We need to spend trillions today to change the future while making a lot of sacrifices in the present. I don't see that happening so am very pessimistic for the future generations
The countries with rapidly expanding populations are not the ones with significant per-capita carbon emissions.
True, but a) it's very much on the plan of every country without significant per-capita carbon emissions to become a country with significant per-capita carbon emissions, and b) the expanding populations can and often do emigrate to countries with significant per-capita carbon emissions where they add to the per-capita.
High emissions come from a monetary economy with a requirement of profit. Soon each remaining part of the world outside that economy will be a part of it, because this is how the monetary economy expands: putting regions "outside" under it's control. I just don't understand how people are sanguine that "now" it's "fine" because the rapidly expanding populations are outside of regions with intensive economic development, because very soon they will be inside such regions, either because a capital-intensive region enveloped them (no more free sheep grazing on the meadow, etc) or because the need for money in some area of their lives drove them into a capital-intensive region (favelas, etc.).