Congratulations on a compelling work of art of such timely importance that it practically invites comment. It raises grisly questions if there are 3.3 times more humans living on earth than it can sustain. We can’t simply remove nearly 70% of the population, but we can live differently by changing our ways to consume and waste less with less technology.
There is no necessity to 'remove 70% of the population' - just help the women of the world to adjust it downward naturally and voluntarily, without billionaires telling them what to do. We could certainly attain a balance by about 2120.
Thank you, Julian - very important piece! I was born at 2.3 billion. Already in 1977 it was clear to me that population growth could not happen anymore without pushing the spectrum of possible future closer to the dystopian end. Hence I got a vasectomy to ensure I would not contribute to population growth.
In discussion of the SDGs, I always point out that SDG 0 "Responsible Procreation" is missing and that without this SDG all the other are unachievable. Great that you compiled what should be convincing evidence that we need to stop growing like cancer or a deadly virus in the Earth's life-support system.
Spot on! Great to see people talking about global population and our overshoot of Earth’s carrying capacity. From capitalists to environmentalists and across the political spectrum in the Global North, nearly everyone avoids the population question these days. The work of Nandita Bajaj and Population Balance is one exception. Good to see Paul Ehrlich getting a mention.
We do not have any “environmental” problems, we have human population problems. Population size combined with consumption is the driver of all global issues. Nothing is going to improve until we acknowledge that and work accordingly.
Thank you for this Julian. The folks at https://www.populationbalance.org/ have been writing and speaking and publishing on this for years, and still, people who write about population are routinely pilloried in both academic and popular presses. It's a math problem, as you point out. And while most will slink away when the topic comes up, throw slurs at those pointing out the math, or invoke framings around "justice", the only justice that will occur is that ecosystems that sustain humans and other forms of life are headed for collapse.
People who tell the truth are seldom thanked for it! Paul Ehrlich was pilloried for well over half a century for being bold enough to speak out in the 1960s, when one third of the world were hungry. I console myself with the reflection that sometimes a person's true value does not become clear to all until after they had passed on. May that be so in his case.
The greatest threat to [y]our children and grandchildren is other people's children and grandchildren, just as [y]our children and grandchildren are the greatest threat to every Earthling's child we share the planet with. The "sustainable" population of humans on this planet is zero.
Your conclusions are perfectly rational, but only if you refuse a-priori to accept that there are, in plain fact, more advanced races who are, demonstrably, able to act in ways that preserve demographic stability.
Congratulations on a compelling work of art of such timely importance that it practically invites comment. It raises grisly questions if there are 3.3 times more humans living on earth than it can sustain. We can’t simply remove nearly 70% of the population, but we can live differently by changing our ways to consume and waste less with less technology.
There is no necessity to 'remove 70% of the population' - just help the women of the world to adjust it downward naturally and voluntarily, without billionaires telling them what to do. We could certainly attain a balance by about 2120.
👍
Thank you, Julian - very important piece! I was born at 2.3 billion. Already in 1977 it was clear to me that population growth could not happen anymore without pushing the spectrum of possible future closer to the dystopian end. Hence I got a vasectomy to ensure I would not contribute to population growth.
In discussion of the SDGs, I always point out that SDG 0 "Responsible Procreation" is missing and that without this SDG all the other are unachievable. Great that you compiled what should be convincing evidence that we need to stop growing like cancer or a deadly virus in the Earth's life-support system.
Spot on! Great to see people talking about global population and our overshoot of Earth’s carrying capacity. From capitalists to environmentalists and across the political spectrum in the Global North, nearly everyone avoids the population question these days. The work of Nandita Bajaj and Population Balance is one exception. Good to see Paul Ehrlich getting a mention.
We do not have any “environmental” problems, we have human population problems. Population size combined with consumption is the driver of all global issues. Nothing is going to improve until we acknowledge that and work accordingly.
Thank you for this Julian. The folks at https://www.populationbalance.org/ have been writing and speaking and publishing on this for years, and still, people who write about population are routinely pilloried in both academic and popular presses. It's a math problem, as you point out. And while most will slink away when the topic comes up, throw slurs at those pointing out the math, or invoke framings around "justice", the only justice that will occur is that ecosystems that sustain humans and other forms of life are headed for collapse.
People who tell the truth are seldom thanked for it! Paul Ehrlich was pilloried for well over half a century for being bold enough to speak out in the 1960s, when one third of the world were hungry. I console myself with the reflection that sometimes a person's true value does not become clear to all until after they had passed on. May that be so in his case.
The greatest threat to [y]our children and grandchildren is other people's children and grandchildren, just as [y]our children and grandchildren are the greatest threat to every Earthling's child we share the planet with. The "sustainable" population of humans on this planet is zero.
Your misanthropy becomes you!
As I have said many times, I love people. Humans, on the other hand, I could do without, which is just one reason I never hatched one.
Your conclusions are perfectly rational, but only if you refuse a-priori to accept that there are, in plain fact, more advanced races who are, demonstrably, able to act in ways that preserve demographic stability.
https://substack.com/@valledesombra/note/c-240098242?r=gno21&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web
"to allow collapse to occur naturally – and suffer the consequences."
Yup. That's the one we're getting. I also don't think it's undue pessimism to day so either. Just something we should accept and get ready for.
Better hurry. Trump is doing his best...