It's interesting that people assume we can have both an increased population (through massive public health measures, increasing lifespans etc.) AND greater consumption (through growing more food, reducing poverty, manufactured goods like EVs and solar panels, etc.) WHILE stopping the monster at all, let alone with one-and-done 'solution…
It's interesting that people assume we can have both an increased population (through massive public health measures, increasing lifespans etc.) AND greater consumption (through growing more food, reducing poverty, manufactured goods like EVs and solar panels, etc.) WHILE stopping the monster at all, let alone with one-and-done 'solutions'.
Additionally, perhaps the 'end of progress' in the sense of sewage / clean water / mass vaccination is the result, not of having given up, but because we've already picked all or most of the low-hanging fruit. Further progress is increasingly esoteric and subject to diminishing returns, so now it's rich men going to space. Which, when you think about it, circles back to the first paragraph up there ^^. How much more can we do in terms of saving more lives and making them more comfortable, while also dialing back the cascade of crises related to overshoot?
Some politicians are for increasing population, via removing reproductive rights or permitting more immigration (that is, allowing more people to survive bad situations in home countries by coming to the U.S., where then, hypothetically at least, they could also increase relative consumption, too.)
As far as consumption goes, I too would like to see more equitable resource sharing. However, to people accustomed to the North American lifestyle, that's going to look a whole lot like impoverishment, and no politician running on a platform of "I want to reduce our material conditions to less-developed standards (and not just for the people the voter hates)" is never going to win a position of power. However, if consumption is sufficiently reduced, that too would have an effect on population (if there's not enough shelter, food, medical care, etc. - not pretty).
It's interesting that people assume we can have both an increased population (through massive public health measures, increasing lifespans etc.) AND greater consumption (through growing more food, reducing poverty, manufactured goods like EVs and solar panels, etc.) WHILE stopping the monster at all, let alone with one-and-done 'solutions'.
Additionally, perhaps the 'end of progress' in the sense of sewage / clean water / mass vaccination is the result, not of having given up, but because we've already picked all or most of the low-hanging fruit. Further progress is increasingly esoteric and subject to diminishing returns, so now it's rich men going to space. Which, when you think about it, circles back to the first paragraph up there ^^. How much more can we do in terms of saving more lives and making them more comfortable, while also dialing back the cascade of crises related to overshoot?
It's all related.
Yes, good point. Something has to give. I vote for consumption. Our rulers are going for population
Some politicians are for increasing population, via removing reproductive rights or permitting more immigration (that is, allowing more people to survive bad situations in home countries by coming to the U.S., where then, hypothetically at least, they could also increase relative consumption, too.)
As far as consumption goes, I too would like to see more equitable resource sharing. However, to people accustomed to the North American lifestyle, that's going to look a whole lot like impoverishment, and no politician running on a platform of "I want to reduce our material conditions to less-developed standards (and not just for the people the voter hates)" is never going to win a position of power. However, if consumption is sufficiently reduced, that too would have an effect on population (if there's not enough shelter, food, medical care, etc. - not pretty).