world population would still rise
Loudmouth,
rise is definitely different & preferable to exploding !

individual,
Where did you get the barmy idea that people can't change after several thousand generations?

______________________________________________________________________________________

Saltpetre,
'Tis a fairly safe option that technology will continue to develop, but solving most of the current environmental problems depends not on developing new technology but on implementing existing technology.

Likewise we don't need "a mind-blowing shift in human cultural and social relations placing respect for planet Earth and all of its cohabitants at the zenith of all human aspiration and endeavor" but we do need to treat it as very important, and we certainly need to stop sacrificing environmental objectives for short term financial gain.

We must preserve large areas of each ecosystem in its natural state, but also recognise that many (though not all) of the human constructed environments are important for other species. And we need to understand that this planet's carrying capacity is not fixed, and humans are capable of improving it as well as degrading it.

Resource consumption certainly isn't the only environmental problem, but it's the one that's blamed most on population. However when you actually look at who's consuming those resources, you'll find the few rich are consuming much more than the many poor.

Africa - 7 children per female, population 1.3 billion
India - 4 children per female, population 1.3 billion

Malthuse said production (technology, resources) increases arithmetically (talk about % increase in production ie usually much less than 100% increase), population (without controls) geometrically (2, 2+4=6, 2+4+8=14, 2+4+8+16=30 => over three generations- ranging from 20 to 30 years- population in india at 4 children per female increases by 15 times or 1500%- at a high baseline this likely exceeds capacity).

It's interesting to hear comments from those grand in vision but light on detail.

Loudmouths comment is interesting on ZPG Zero Population Growth and aging population- need to research this- but it doesn't "sound" reasonable. However given the population concerns my instinct is to turn off the baby "tap" before bailing out the population "bath"- Not sure what Loudmouth's views are here. It would be an interesting exercise to compare growth due to birth rate and that due to longer life span.

Other commentators have commented on western energy use and personal responsibility vis the environment but I would consider Aiden's view as negligent and symptomatic of a resistance to birth control by many ideologies especially Classical Liberalist (John Stuart Mill- Freedom) ones. You could perhaps argue that humans shouldn't live outside of the tropical zone due to the higher energy requirements- however much of the technological development appears to have been achieved by civilizations in these high energy zones. What would it mean for sovereignty should such a policy be implemented.

The solution is less people- this starts with lower birth rates in the cultures that have high birth rates

Maltuse says that productivity increases arithmetically and age lengthening is technologically based therefore perhaps birth rate being geometric will have a bigger impact on population than aging over the longer term. I suspect that the Trotsky Communists favour a high death rate over a low birth rate as the old remember what Communism was like "the first time"- it's easier to get the young to change than the old- so if you want to create a new world order you need to neutralize the old people. If you disrupt old communities and families- people don't have roots and are more easily transplanted.

I suspect that older people are more stable and influenced less easily than younger people but they appear to put significant effort into protecting and supporting the younger generations.

There has been some effort to change the conservative nature of older generations to become more classically liberal- for example the concept of "spending the inheritance".

There is a vast difference in the mindset of the generation that saved paper bags to the throw away generation. Consumer culture (a liberal free culture) has created this.

Overall perhaps the aging effect on population due to it's arithmetic technological nature could be just a blip- however of note is the claim of accelerating technological cycles admittedly from a low base. It has been claimed that increases in population drive accelerating technology which in turn helps drive wealth and aging population. However given the limited nature of our planet and the accounting "law of diminishing returns" with more people- we should probably manage our populations. We may not understand all the factors- the fog of war- but we should exercise caution.

Where fools rush in- angels fear to tread

It seems that much of so called modern wealth is wasted in the churn of consumer culture. The consumer generation may be the wealthiest in history but it is probably also the most wasteful.

In 1987 the United Nations Global warming report gave us to the year 2,000 to reverse Climate change otherwise we would all suffer catastrophic events. It is now almost 20 years since then and human activity and development has increased - no observable difference since 1987, except a moveable difference in Earth Plates and volcanoes. Some plates rising and lowering fractionally.

Climate zealots want to ban coal and gas energy to developing countries living in squalor and poverty. We allow them to burn wood and cow dung instead, so causing deforestation of their countries. There is insufficient copper and aluminium in the world to give everyone wind and solar power.

In 2018 the UN repeated its 12 year prediction, it failed to happen 1n 2000 when the Millennium was to end the World from the 1987 prediction; http://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 so the prediction is again given. See what happens in 2030, the same scare tactics. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report