Comparing the Climate and Productivity Impacts of a Shrinking Population

https://www.nber.org/papers/w33932

21 27 1 year ago

Was a long article and only skim read, but wouldn't a bigger factor be rising living standards? As more of the world moves to developed world living standards, which would be ideal, if this shift is faster than green technology + depopulation we are going to see increased climate pressure. I didn't seem them mention this but my inexpert view seems the rising tide of living standards may present the real problem.

pixelfarmer• 1 year ago

I haven't read the actual paper, but alone from the abstract many questions come up.

Personally, I doubt the any "near" to "mid" term population decline will have larger effects on the climate change we are seeing. It is just too slow. Meaning that we certainly get (much!) larger effects about climate change done with other stuff, no doubt about that.

However, using that as an inverse argument to foster population growth is a stupid idea, because more people means more resources needed for everything, starting with food and water, climate change resistant shelter, and all the other stuff that is needed for actual living. All of that isn't created out of thin air. Considering that there is increased pressure just to provide food and water already (climate change anyone?!), the lower the population in the long run is, the better. Also, food supply destroys a lot of our environment, alone the meat industry is a planet wide killer because of that.

If I add all this up, population decline is a good thing. And if I read something like "Meanwhile, a smaller population slows the non-rival innovation that powers improvements in long-run productivity and living standards" I start to question the sanity of the people writing something like that.

willvarfar• 1 year ago

World population is still growing; the classic Hans Rosling TED talk is awesome https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_global_population_gro...

Most countries in the global north (who happen to be the big contributors to climate change) are facing an aging and declining population.

Many of those countries over the last few decades have been steadily outsourcing manufacturing abroad and other things that shift where the pollution happens and gets accounted.

Over the last decade or so in response to public pressure many of their governments have been pursuing national green policies that really further offshore their contribution to climate change rather than reduce it. Its a kind of frustrating greenwashing that isn't what the voters imagine is happening. Cue rant.

bjornsing4• 1 year ago

Our ability to adapt to a changing climate without too much human suffering should radically increase with a shrinking world population though.

In general I think too much emphasis is placed on trying to preserve the current climate as is, and too little on trying to make this planet a good place to live for generations to come. The climate changes over time, that’s just how it is. The climate changes we are seeing now are not extraordinary when viewed over the course of the Earth’s history. The current climate has no intrinsic value and will be long gone in a billion years, regardless of what we do.

skywal_l• 1 year ago

obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1732/

simmerup• 1 year ago

The climate changes we are seeing now are not extraordinary when viewed over the course of the Earth’s history

You realise of course for most of earths history earth was inhospitable to humans

padjo• 1 year ago

The current climate has no intrinsic value

Correct, that’s backwards, all value derives from the current climate.

oulipo• 1 year ago

I guess you don't have any knowledge about climate... the issue is not that the climate can be particularly similar to a given one eons ago, the issue is that the speed at which it happens makes it so that no plant or animal can adapt to it through evolution, and we face extinction

jay_kyburz• 1 year ago

This is not what you said exactly, but I agree that the only future for humans is living in an environment that we create and manage for ourselves. Whether that's on a planetary scale, small orbitals, or underground bunkers.

We had better get a move on, large scale crop failure could destroy civilization as we know it, and I'd much rather my children live in a utopian garden of Eden rather than some dank dungeon eating cockroaches and algae.

defrost• 1 year ago

I have some exposure to geophysics, earth modelling, mineral and energy exploration mapping and modelling.

The extraordinary part is the degree of climate change directly attributable to a biological organism over the course of a century (with the greatest increase in atmospheric insulation happening on a shorter timeframe still).

Are there many examples you can cite of greater change due to biological activity in shorter timeframes that make this current AGW change seem ordinary?

bjornsing4• 1 year ago

Well… I just don’t care if the cause is biological or not. I care about human suffering, and humans suffer all the same regardless.

skeezyboy4• 1 year ago

Are there many examples you can cite of greater change due to biological activity in shorter timeframes that make this current AGW change seem ordinary? thats not why people care about climate change though

zizee2• 1 year ago

The point of trying to address climate change is not that it's impossible for us to adapt, it's that to adapt to the predicted rate of change is going to be a lot more expensive/disruptive than trying to slow the change to more natural levels.

In general I think too much emphasis is placed on trying to preserve the current climate as is, and too little on trying to make this planet a good place to live for generations to come

This is on the money.

The climate changes we are seeing now are not extraordinary

The rate of change is extraordinary, and makes it expensive/different to adjust.

bjornsing4• 1 year ago

The rate of change over the last 150 years has certainly been dramatic. But it’s nothing extraordinary over the course of Earth’s history. There’s been roughly 30 million 150-year periods in Earth’s history and given the planet’s violent past - massive impacts, supervolcanoes - it’s statistically absurd to think ours is the most extreme.

stared2• 1 year ago

In general I think too much emphasis is placed on trying to preserve the current climate as is, and too little on trying to make this planet a good place to live for generations to come.

Well, the easiest way to "make this planet a good place to live for generations to come" is to preserve the current climate (or, arguably, make it cooler).

bjornsing4• 1 year ago

Or to have fewer children and move to where it’s cooler? Could work, or at least it seems so to me.

skeezyboy4• 1 year ago

obviously nature is broken. it has a correct climate and weve mucked that all up with our god damn PCPs

Comparing the Climate and Productivity Impacts of a Shrinking Population

Related Stories