> The fertility rate has been declining world wide, from ~5 per woman in 1950 to ~2.5 now.
But why should that be considered bad? A major factor to this development is decreasing child mortality rates in less developed countries, having to birth fewer children is a natural outcome of that and that's good.
The other version of that would be them still just getting as many children as before, but with all of them surviving into adulthood, and as such contributing to the global population issue, which also happens.
> but it is decidedly a world phenomenon and there is not a lot more decline required before 2.5 becomes <2.
Sorry but I heavily disagree. There's a lot more to decline before 2.5 becomes <2 and even if we get there: Why should that be bad?
Perpetual population growth is a completely insane and unsustainable concept, why are we insisting on making it a thing?
A reduced global population would be one of the most efficient ways to fight climate change and the environmental impact humanity is having on the planet as a whole. Going around and killing people, to reduce the population, is not compatible with our moral framework, so we need to look at other, less drastic, ways of reducing the population or at least keeping its growth in check.
That's exactly where easy access to contraception and the right to abortion come in. These are not just "social issues", in the long term they will become very real economic and environmental issues. Particularly once automation will fully take off, we'll be sitting on a crowded planet with more people than we know what to do with, with conservative politicians still demanding "full employment".
> But why should that be considered bad? A major factor to this development is decreasing child mortality rates in less developed countries, having to birth fewer children is a natural outcome of that and that's good.
The lower fertility rate is not caused by the lower mortality rate, it's just a happy coincidence which is saving us from rapid decline. In particular there is no guarantee that they exactly balance -- and there is no level of infant mortality reduction that can prevent a population decline at a fertility rate below 2, which is where industrialized countries already are and developing countries are headed. It's already below 2 in Brazil and China.
> There's a lot more to decline before 2.5 becomes <2
No, there isn't, especially when Africa is significantly bringing up that average but they also still have a high infant mortality rate. Every other continent is either already below 2 or is only slightly above it and declining over time. The biggest contributor to population growth isn't fertility rate, it's people living longer.
> and even if we get there: Why should that be bad? Perpetual population growth is a completely insane and unsustainable concept, why are we insisting on making it a thing?
Population growth isn't necessary. What we need is population stability, because population decline is a catastrophe. Somebody has to pay for the people who retire at 65 and live to 100, collecting social security the whole time. The fewer people there are the more burden there is on each one, and that cost comes out of everything else -- education and research, quality of life, everything.
> A reduced global population would be one of the most efficient ways to fight climate change and the environmental impact humanity is having on the planet as a whole.
The most efficient way to fight climate change is to stop burning carbon. That means solar panels and wind turbines and nuclear power and electric cars. The per-capita cost of doing that is slightly negatively correlated with population due to economies of scale. Moreover, the timescale of needing to fight climate change is right now, whereas the effect of birthrates is multiple decades down the road. We need to stamp out fossil fuels ASAP, not 30-50 years from now. And once we do that there is not any significant relationship between population and climate change.
> Particularly once automation will fully take off, we'll be sitting on a crowded planet with more people than we know what to do with, with conservative politicians still demanding "full employment".
Automation destroying jobs on net has never happened. Every time a job is automated, it lowers cost of living, which increases the number of remaining jobs that a person can take and still make ends meat. There will never be a lack of jobs. What may actually happen eventually is that it becomes possible to make ends meat by working four hours a week and some people choose to do that, or work for ten years and then retire, but how is that a problem?
But why should that be considered bad? A major factor to this development is decreasing child mortality rates in less developed countries, having to birth fewer children is a natural outcome of that and that's good.
The other version of that would be them still just getting as many children as before, but with all of them surviving into adulthood, and as such contributing to the global population issue, which also happens.
> but it is decidedly a world phenomenon and there is not a lot more decline required before 2.5 becomes <2.
Sorry but I heavily disagree. There's a lot more to decline before 2.5 becomes <2 and even if we get there: Why should that be bad? Perpetual population growth is a completely insane and unsustainable concept, why are we insisting on making it a thing?
A reduced global population would be one of the most efficient ways to fight climate change and the environmental impact humanity is having on the planet as a whole. Going around and killing people, to reduce the population, is not compatible with our moral framework, so we need to look at other, less drastic, ways of reducing the population or at least keeping its growth in check.
That's exactly where easy access to contraception and the right to abortion come in. These are not just "social issues", in the long term they will become very real economic and environmental issues. Particularly once automation will fully take off, we'll be sitting on a crowded planet with more people than we know what to do with, with conservative politicians still demanding "full employment".
reply