We can probably accommodate 12 billion people on Earth, but only at the cost of just about all our land area of diverse ecosystems.
Already we are taking up pretty much all the usable land on the planet such that to support more population we have to either make a breakthrough in production or displace land used for other things.
For various reasons, it would be good to have a lower population than we have today, but it's important for this degrowth in population to be gradual and equitable.
Because that's not how population works. Developing countries see their death rates fall with improving infrastructure and the birth rate only falls 1-2 generations later, leading to population growth, but it eventually tapers off. Most developed countries have negative population growth, why would new developed countries be different?
We see this happen when healthcare and education improve, and having more children is no longer a compelling solution to the risk of losing a child.
The tapering effect happens especially in urban areas, as opposed to rural ones, where birth rates tend to stay high.
Maybe the solution is to make urban areas attractive enough that everybody wants to live there for noneconomic reasons, so that whatever crowded-environment effect that takes place is not resolved by simply spreading out.
We can probably accommodate 12 billion people on Earth, but only at the cost of just about all our land area of diverse ecosystems.
Already we are taking up pretty much all the usable land on the planet such that to support more population we have to either make a breakthrough in production or displace land used for other things.
For various reasons, it would be good to have a lower population than we have today, but it's important for this degrowth in population to be gradual and equitable.
mostly for animal ag btw, eating plants we'd need about a fifth of the land afaik
What's to guarantee that the population wouldn't just keep expanding until we hit the carrying capacity with only plant-based diets?
Because that's not how population works. Developing countries see their death rates fall with improving infrastructure and the birth rate only falls 1-2 generations later, leading to population growth, but it eventually tapers off. Most developed countries have negative population growth, why would new developed countries be different?
We see this happen when healthcare and education improve, and having more children is no longer a compelling solution to the risk of losing a child.
The tapering effect happens especially in urban areas, as opposed to rural ones, where birth rates tend to stay high.
Maybe the solution is to make urban areas attractive enough that everybody wants to live there for noneconomic reasons, so that whatever crowded-environment effect that takes place is not resolved by simply spreading out.