Today is January 1st. In roughly 6 months we will be hitting Earth overshoot day, again!
The conundrum I have been pondering for years is how do we reduce the human population in an ethical manner? I have not yet figured that out, but I do know that a correction will take place relativelysoon, and it won't be pleasant.
Ironically, it seems our chemically saturated lives are already lowering sperm counts.
I have thought about what you stated, but what I have not figured out is how you get around the various religious and cultural beliefs that so many have about producing many offspring. China's one child experiment was disastrous for a culture that favors male offspring. It would be no different in the US if such a mandate were attempted. How do you get India, Africa or Latin America on board?
Same way everyone gets on board. Our fertility rates have been plummeting for other reasons than the sperm count.
It’s been a while since I looked into it, but I believe it’s mostly a question of women having the freedom to choose, which largely depends on their ability to be self-sufficient. Ie societal egalitarian principles. After that, family planning and contraception. Infant mortality rates are a huge factor, but the changes in behavior lag behind foe a generation or more, as society slowly realizes too many children are surviving. (I say that tongue in cheek, but it’s true). Basically, improving conditions across the board.
Now, given that we’re facing a collapsing world, the whole system and future is extra chaotic, and I don’t even know where to begin regarding improving conditions.
My comment was mainly to make the point that ethically lowering the population count is done by having fewer children. And I would also suggest not keeping everyone alive as long as possible isn’t really worth it, as living in a decrepit body aged 80+ isn’t fun nor dignified. But that won’t budge the population count much.
In reality, we’re in ecological overshoot and the population will self-correct via famines due to breadbasket failures due to climate change, and/or likely financial collapses of entities too big to save. And then snowball from there. But that’s a side point.
I agree that giving women more control with family planning would be a definite way to start this process. The pessimist in me still thinks that misogyny in the form of culture and religion would be the biggest hurdles delaying the process while we have little time to right this ship.
As far as longevity, I believe that there should be less stigma placed on those who want to pass on their own terms. On a more controversial note, I have often wondered if viruses were meant to cull our numbers much like wolves take out the sick and weak from caribou or other heards.
Perhaps meant was not the best choice of words. Meant as in "supposed to". To be more specific, 2 speicies (humans and viruses) who evolved together creating a symbiotic environment. Viruses keep human numbers where they are sustainable for their ecosystem, human survivors would be those that have the best immune system and environment, and animals give viruses a host and transportation. Vaccines unbalanced the relationship. You could make a similar argument with antibiotics. Both have extended billions of lives, mine included. Also an atheist who thinks the ship is long gone as well.
Ironically, it seems our chemically saturated lives are already lowering sperm counts.
I have thought about what you stated, but what I have not figured out is how you get around the various religious and cultural beliefs that so many have about producing many offspring. China's one child experiment was disastrous for a culture who prefers male offspring. It would be no different here in the US if such a mandate were attempted. How do you get India, Africa or Latin America on board?
Today is January 1st. In roughly 6 months we will be hitting Earth overshoot day, again!
The conundrum I have been pondering for years is how do we reduce the human population in an ethical manner? I have not yet figured that out, but I do know that a correction will take place relativelysoon, and it won't be pleasant.
Lower the fertility rate via family planning and decrease elaborate life-prolonging efforts.
I sent a reply, but accidentally wrote it in the general notes.
Can you copy/paste it here?
Ironically, it seems our chemically saturated lives are already lowering sperm counts.
I have thought about what you stated, but what I have not figured out is how you get around the various religious and cultural beliefs that so many have about producing many offspring. China's one child experiment was disastrous for a culture that favors male offspring. It would be no different in the US if such a mandate were attempted. How do you get India, Africa or Latin America on board?
Same way everyone gets on board. Our fertility rates have been plummeting for other reasons than the sperm count.
It’s been a while since I looked into it, but I believe it’s mostly a question of women having the freedom to choose, which largely depends on their ability to be self-sufficient. Ie societal egalitarian principles. After that, family planning and contraception. Infant mortality rates are a huge factor, but the changes in behavior lag behind foe a generation or more, as society slowly realizes too many children are surviving. (I say that tongue in cheek, but it’s true). Basically, improving conditions across the board.
Now, given that we’re facing a collapsing world, the whole system and future is extra chaotic, and I don’t even know where to begin regarding improving conditions.
My comment was mainly to make the point that ethically lowering the population count is done by having fewer children. And I would also suggest not keeping everyone alive as long as possible isn’t really worth it, as living in a decrepit body aged 80+ isn’t fun nor dignified. But that won’t budge the population count much.
In reality, we’re in ecological overshoot and the population will self-correct via famines due to breadbasket failures due to climate change, and/or likely financial collapses of entities too big to save. And then snowball from there. But that’s a side point.
I agree that giving women more control with family planning would be a definite way to start this process. The pessimist in me still thinks that misogyny in the form of culture and religion would be the biggest hurdles delaying the process while we have little time to right this ship.
As far as longevity, I believe that there should be less stigma placed on those who want to pass on their own terms. On a more controversial note, I have often wondered if viruses were meant to cull our numbers much like wolves take out the sick and weak from caribou or other heards.
I tried. Ill just rewrite it.
Perhaps meant was not the best choice of words. Meant as in "supposed to". To be more specific, 2 speicies (humans and viruses) who evolved together creating a symbiotic environment. Viruses keep human numbers where they are sustainable for their ecosystem, human survivors would be those that have the best immune system and environment, and animals give viruses a host and transportation. Vaccines unbalanced the relationship. You could make a similar argument with antibiotics. Both have extended billions of lives, mine included. Also an atheist who thinks the ship is long gone as well.
Ironically, it seems our chemically saturated lives are already lowering sperm counts.
I have thought about what you stated, but what I have not figured out is how you get around the various religious and cultural beliefs that so many have about producing many offspring. China's one child experiment was disastrous for a culture who prefers male offspring. It would be no different here in the US if such a mandate were attempted. How do you get India, Africa or Latin America on board?