More doom and gloom?

[Mock Turtle]

Society is right on track for a global collapse, new study of infamous 1970s report finds | Live Science

The good news is that it's not too late to avoid both of these scenarios and put society on track for an alternative — the Stabilized World (SW) scenario. This path begins as the BAU and CT routes do, with population, pollution and economic growth rising in tandem while natural resources decline. The difference comes when humans decide to deliberately limit economic growth on their own, before a lack of resources forces them to. "The SW scenario assumes that in addition to the technological solutions, global societal priorities change," Herrington wrote. "A change in values and policies translates into, amongst other things, low desired family size, perfect birth control availability, and a deliberate choice to limit industrial output and prioritize health and education services."

'Low desired family size' .. good luck with that, given that the poorer countries, and possibly those most religious tend to advocate for large numbers of children, the former as to the likelihood of the children surviving, and the latter seemingly as to spreading the faith.

And besides all that, we have the advertising industry to battle against, since they are not going to give up easily as to their rights.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Society is right on track for a global collapse, new study of infamous 1970s report finds | Live Science

The good news is that it's not too late to avoid both of these scenarios and put society on track for an alternative — the Stabilized World (SW) scenario. This path begins as the BAU and CT routes do, with population, pollution and economic growth rising in tandem while natural resources decline. The difference comes when humans decide to deliberately limit economic growth on their own, before a lack of resources forces them to. "The SW scenario assumes that in addition to the technological solutions, global societal priorities change," Herrington wrote. "A change in values and policies translates into, amongst other things, low desired family size, perfect birth control availability, and a deliberate choice to limit industrial output and prioritize health and education services."

'Low desired family size' .. good luck with that, given that the poorer countries, and possibly those most religious tend to advocate for large numbers of children, the former as to the likelihood of the children surviving, and the latter seemingly as to spreading the faith.

And besides all that, we have the advertising industry to battle against, since they are not going to give up easily as to their rights.

The population growth rate globally has been declining for quite a while:

Fertility rates are the driver:

 

[Stevicus]

Society is right on track for a global collapse, new study of infamous 1970s report finds | Live Science

The good news is that it's not too late to avoid both of these scenarios and put society on track for an alternative — the Stabilized World (SW) scenario. This path begins as the BAU and CT routes do, with population, pollution and economic growth rising in tandem while natural resources decline. The difference comes when humans decide to deliberately limit economic growth on their own, before a lack of resources forces them to. "The SW scenario assumes that in addition to the technological solutions, global societal priorities change," Herrington wrote. "A change in values and policies translates into, amongst other things, low desired family size, perfect birth control availability, and a deliberate choice to limit industrial output and prioritize health and education services."

'Low desired family size' .. good luck with that, given that the poorer countries, and possibly those most religious tend to advocate for large numbers of children, the former as to the likelihood of the children surviving, and the latter seemingly as to spreading the faith.

And besides all that, we have the advertising industry to battle against, since they are not going to give up easily as to their rights.

I remember overpopulation was considered one of the more serious global problems back when I was a kid, although it seemed to subside or wasn't really talked about as much since the 70s. It was one of the central themes of Soylent Green where overpopulation was so bad that there was no room for anyone. People had to sleep on stairwells or in the streets, although a few were lucky enough to have their own apartments. It was one of those grim futures people predicted, but not from nuclear war or a zombie apocalypse; just too many people and not enough stuff to go around - and of course, global warming figured prominently as well.

Charlton Heston was understandably shocked and outraged when he found out the truth about Soylent Green.

 

[PureX]

Let's call this endless need for "economic growth" what it is: greed. Do any of us really see humanity recognizing the toxicity of it's own greed, and deciding to reign it in?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Let's call this endless need for "economic growth" what it is: greed. Do any of us really see humanity recognizing the toxicity of it's own greed, and deciding to reign it in?

Economic growth has created a large middle class in China. Formerly dirt-poor peasants are now travelling the world and sending their kids to university.

 

[Brickjectivity]

'Low desired family size' .. good luck with that, given that the poorer countries, and possibly those most religious tend to advocate for large numbers of children, the former as to the likelihood of the children surviving, and the latter seemingly as to spreading the faith.

And besides all that, we have the advertising industry to battle against, since they are not going to give up easily as to their rights.

Take heart, mock turtle.

As W. Monk rightly point out, the population growth rate has slowed. People continue to die almost as fast as they are born. The threat to human life has shifted from overpopulation back to other things such as war and disease.

Food production techniques are improving. Food is always getting tastier, better. Diets are improving all over the world. People are buying less soda. Also they stopped selling purple ketchup. That had me worried.

 

[PureX]

Economic growth has created a large middle class in China. Formerly dirt-poor peasants are now travelling the world and sending their kids to university.

Do humans really NEED to be traveling the world and going to universities? What is the cost to humanity of all this "middle class" success? China is achieving all this "success" by being the greatest industrial polluter on the planet. Just like the U.S. was when it created all it's middle class success. And look where all that greed has brought us. The middle class in the U.S. is dying out as the wealthy elites keep gobbling up more and more and more of everything they don't need, and that everyone else, does (money, power, opportunity, and resources).

It's not "economic growth" that we need. It's better distribution, and wiser application of technology. We need to focus on overall quality of life, not the quantity of unnecessary crap that we can accumulate.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Let's call this endless need for "economic growth" what it is: greed. Do any of us really see humanity recognizing the toxicity of it's own greed, and deciding to reign it in?

Plenty of people are recognising it. In part because the impact of climate change is becoming impossible to ignore. Sadly, powerful interest groups continue to deny what is happening not in some hypothetical dystopian future, but right here, right now. And the global economy is geared up to drive us all into debt, whilst selling us crap we don't need and can't afford.

How it plays out is anyone's guess.

 

[sun rise]

Let's call this endless need for "economic growth" what it is: greed. Do any of us really see humanity recognizing the toxicity of it's own greed, and deciding to reign it in?

Some of course have.

For it to be universal will take external forces.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The population growth rate globally has been declining for quite a while:

View attachment 53076

Fertility rates are the driver:

View attachment 53077

Future Population Growth - Our World in Data

An increase from 7.7 billion to 11.2 billion is probably still beyond what is sustainable - as to effects upon the planet though.

 

[PureX]

Some of course have.

For it to be universal will take external forces.

Even catastrophic social failure is as likely to result in an even MORE criminally greedy regime as it is to inspire positive change. History is very rarely on the side of ethical advancement.

I suspect the only real opportunity we humans have of such ethical advancement happens when things are going well, and people are not living in fear. Unfortunately, that's also when they think there is no need for improvement, or even if they see the need, there have no real desire to make it happen.

 

[Brickjectivity]

It's not "economic growth" that we need. It's better distribution, and wiser application of technology. We need to focus on overall quality of life, not the quantity of unnecessary crap that we can accumulate.

There are some good possibilities. For example its possible to design an automated farm for people with homes and apartments. I'm not saying they are currently available or that there are plans ready, but its possible. The pieces are all in place. A small automated garden could become as common as boiling water.

Its possible that clothing will improve to the point that housing is unnecessary. I'm not saying that we are there, yet; but its possible.

Its possible that people will someday be able to eat almost anything that grows and get the nourishment we need: leaves, grass, bark etc. We can't now, but the path is there.

 

[PureX]

I think a good beginning step would be to recognize the fundamental difference between what we need to survive, and what we want to be 'happy', and that these require two very different systems to provide equitably, efficiently, and effectively. If greed is the enemy (and it is) then we need to begin addressing what fuels it. And obviously, the fear of not having enough of what we need to live is a significant component of that fuel. It is the component that makes greed so contagious. The more one man hordes, the more the next man feels he must do the same just t protect himself from the first man. And if we can eliminate that fear, we can make greed a choice rather than an necessity of survival.

Covid actually provided us with a glimpse of how this might work, as it made us consider what are 'essential' social-economic enterprises, and what are not. If we had defined these before the pandemic, we could have frozen our non-essential economy so that no one would lose anything for the duration, while supporting the essential economy to make sure everyone stayed fed, clothed, sheltered, and protected. This idea of there being two different economies rather than one, I think, could open up a very new and interesting set of possibilities for the future.

 

[Stevicus]

Future Population Growth - Our World in Data

An increase from 7.7 billion to 11.2 billion is probably still beyond what is sustainable - as to effects upon the planet though.

Coincidentally, I was just reading up on Malthus the other day, and he had some interesting ideas about population growth. While most of his ideas seem somewhat outdated, it appears there are some neo-Malthusians.

Malthusianism - Wikipedia

Neo-Malthusianism is the advocacy of human population planning to ensure resources and environmental integrities for current and future human populations as well as for other species.[2] In Britain the term 'Malthusian' can also refer more specifically to arguments made in favour of preventive birth control, hence organizations such as the Malthusian League.[8] Neo-Malthusians differ from Malthus's theories mainly in their support for the use of contraception. Malthus, a devout Christian, believed that "self-control" (i.e., abstinence) was preferable to artificial birth control. He also worried that the effect of contraceptive use would be too powerful in curbing growth, conflicting with the common 18th century perspective (to which Malthus himself adhered) that a steadily growing population remained a necessary factor in the continuing "progress of society," generally. Modern neo-Malthusians are generally more concerned than Malthus with environmental degradation and catastrophic famine than with poverty.

Malthusianism has attracted criticism from diverse schools of thought, including Marxists[9] and socialists,[10] libertarians and free market enthusiasts,[11] feminists[12] and human rights advocates, characterising it as excessively pessimistic, misanthropic or inhuman.[13][14][3][15] Many critics believe Malthusianism has been discredited since the publication of Principle of Population, often citing advances in agricultural techniques and modern reductions in human fertility.[16] Many modern proponents believe that the basic concept of population growth eventually outstripping resources is still fundamentally valid, and that positive checks are still likely to occur in humanity's future if no action is taken to intentionally curb population growth.[17][18] In spite of the variety of criticisms against it, the Malthusian argument remains a major discourse based on which national and international environmental regulations are promoted.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Society is right on track for a global collapse, new study of infamous 1970s report finds | Live Science

The good news is that it's not too late to avoid both of these scenarios and put society on track for an alternative — the Stabilized World (SW) scenario. This path begins as the BAU and CT routes do, with population, pollution and economic growth rising in tandem while natural resources decline. The difference comes when humans decide to deliberately limit economic growth on their own, before a lack of resources forces them to. "The SW scenario assumes that in addition to the technological solutions, global societal priorities change," Herrington wrote. "A change in values and policies translates into, amongst other things, low desired family size, perfect birth control availability, and a deliberate choice to limit industrial output and prioritize health and education services."

'Low desired family size' .. good luck with that, given that the poorer countries, and possibly those most religious tend to advocate for large numbers of children, the former as to the likelihood of the children surviving, and the latter seemingly as to spreading the faith.

And besides all that, we have the advertising industry to battle against, since they are not going to give up easily as to their rights.

 

[Kooky]

'Low desired family size' .. good luck with that, given that the poorer countries, and possibly those most religious tend to advocate for large numbers of children, the former as to the likelihood of the children surviving, and the latter seemingly as to spreading the faith.

It's neither just the poorer countries nor the strongly religious ones.
Compare and contrast the amount of public subsidies potentially available to a family in most of Europe, vs. the availability of affordable birth control and the ease to get abortions.

Its possible that people will someday be able to eat almost anything that grows and get the nourishment we need: leaves, grass, bark etc. We can't now, but the path is there.

It's also possible that our civilization will someday collapse from the consequences of unchecked global climate change.

 

[Wandering Monk]

There is a strong inverse correlation between education/wealth and family size.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It's neither just the poorer countries nor the strongly religious ones.
Compare and contrast the amount of public subsidies potentially available to a family in most of Europe, vs. the availability of affordable birth control and the ease to get abortions.


It's also possible that our civilization will someday collapse from the consequences of unchecked global climate change.

It still tends to be the more industrialised countries that have low or negative birth rates and the less developed countries that have higher ones though, and where such an imbalance is probably hardly conducive as to how we share the resources and rewards, if the latter are likely not contributing so much or in some imbalanced way - such as migrations to the more developed countries.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Since they appear to be sitting on milk churns I applaud them for drinking so much milk.

 

[Stevicus]

Is that a clip from Hee Haw?