Should we 1) Self-flagellate our way into demographic collapse? 2) Support both pronatalism and geoengineering?https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/climate/climate-change-children.html?referer=https://t.co/ElgyqtnESu?amp=1#click=https://t.co/ElgyqtnESu …
-
Depends on the geoengineering. Most of them don't work. Regarding population, I support anyone's choice to have kids, but the notion of an unsustainable population is not wrong. Value structures matter here.
What do you think max sustainable population is, given reasonably expectable tech advances? Genuinely curious.
-
-
Good question, I don't know; I've seen numbers that look like ~10-11b. But the point is it's not infinity, so at some point liberal ethics will have to confront the harsh science involved. Climate change (tech) might hasten (delay) when that confrontation needs to take place.
-
It's quite possible the global population will not exceed 11 billion (at least not any time soon) even without resorting to (further) antinatalist measures. https://youtu.be/2LyzBoHo5EI
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.