• wahming@monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Yeah it’s a bit of a hyperbole, but the rate is what’s important. By the time we hit worldwide negative growth rates (which is projected to happen this century), it’s going to be way too late to have a discussion about whether or not that’s a good thing.

    • nyan@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      A good thing for some, a bad thing for others. Good for the environment, most likely. But we’re going to have to extensively reorganize the workforce.

      • wahming@monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Experts have generally agreed that any reduction in population size will come far too late to help with the current climate crisis. We’re either going to hit sustainability with our current population or die in the process.

        • nyan@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          While the climate crisis is a significant part of what ails the environment, it’s far from the only thing. Lowering the human population should mean reduced destruction of surviving animal habitats and populations, for instance. And the greater the genetic diversity in an animal population, the better its chances of adapting to external events like climate change become.