|
computer parts posted:Only if per capita consumption is constant. The technology currently exists (more or less) to replace the vast vast majority of emissions and it would be infinitely more palatable than trying to do population control for the populace. Unfortunately we have a situation where much of the world, especially the developing world, is relying on burning fuel rather than cleaner power sources. Meanwhile everywhere that isn't the first world is striving to consume like the first world. The first world, of course, worships consumption and as we've seen in the U.S. conspicuous consumption is rampant in wealthier parts of the world. Americans also loving love their cars and seem loathe to give them up. As the world stands now it's ultimately true that more people = more emissions. We'll see if those problems can be fixed but currently it doesn't look good as there are people attempting to actively sabotage cleaner fuel and, for better or for worse, burning coal for power is just so loving cheap. Yeah the technology largely exists but using it would involve changes that a lot of powerful, wealthy people would hate and sacrifices that first world populations are not exactly willing to make. It's certainly possible the question is can we convince the human race to do it.
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
tsa posted:Even 10 years ago taxi drivers would have laughed at the idea of being replaced by driverless cars but it's probably going to happen within the next couple decades. I think you are greatly underestimating the number of low wage jobs that can be eliminated. Sure janitors sound hard but fast food chains? Warehouse operations (see amazon)? Self-check out lines have gone from basically 0 in 2005 to 400,000 in a decade, and that trend will only increase. There was basically no such thing as retirement even as recently as 100 years ago, and health care was not as big of a deal. If you were old and frail, your family took care of you, hopefully, and when you succumbed to a disease, you left this mortal coil. There was no expensive nursing homes, or surgeries, or drawn out end of life care. All of those kinds cost money, and require a young workforce to support them. If we don't worry about that, then, yeah, a declining population for awhile isn't a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
I don't have time to effort-post this right now, but Thomas Piketty talks about population growth rate declines at length in Capital in the 21st Century. If UN estimates for future population growth and economic growth hold true, then the 21st century will largely see a decline to stabilization at low levels of both population growth and economic growth for most areas in the world. He points out that Europe has essentially already entered this steady state, and that America is likely not far behind. The consequence of this lower level of growth (population + economic) will be increased wealth inequality. I know it sounds funny, because it is already absurdly unequal, but it will get worse if the predicted growth rates are accurate. Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:I don't have time to effort-post this right now, but Thomas Piketty talks about population growth rate declines at length in Capital in the 21st Century. If UN estimates for future population growth and economic growth hold true, then the 21st century will largely see a decline to stabilization at low levels of both population growth and economic growth for most areas in the world. He points out that Europe has essentially already entered this steady state, and that America is likely not far behind. I think that applying economic models to wide demographic and technological change only works in the short to intermediate range. At a certain point, the assumptions about underlying conditions don't really don't make sense anymore. I think that making guesses about demographics and economic changes out to about 2040 or 2050 make sense at this point, but to talk about what the economy will look like in the later half of the 21st century is just like if someone in 1914 was trying to guess what the economy would look like in 1980.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 09:37
|
|
