> China is particularly troubling since they make up 28% of all emissions (US is 15%) and they have both a growing population and growing emissions per capita.
That is just providing proof that we cannot eradicate poverty on the planet without destroying it in the process with 8 billion human beings. And this is just CO2 emissions but the issue is with consumption of resources in general: What is happening is simply that consumption of resources increases when people are lifted out of poverty (quite obviously since that's pretty much poverty means).
The only sustainable way for human development is to bring global population down at the same time at global standard of living increases.
Not sure why you are being devoted. Having say, half our current population would have made this problem considerably easier.
People do seem to cut back their baby making as they move from agricultural to industrial, it’s just a much slower process than we would prefer to help with this issue.
Would make little difference. Majority of consumption is coming from small percentage of the world's population. If everyone on the planet consumed at the rate of the top 1% we'd need 10s of earths.
Plus it's also dog whistle. Who should decrease the population? Western white people?
You are talking about communities subsistence farming with large families, and trying to reduce the size of those families through pushing them to industrialise. but what does it matter? those current families no matter how large, don't consume anything.
> If everyone on the planet consumed at the rate of the top 1% we'd need 10s of earths.
But that's exactly the point. Although it's a bit more than the top 1%, more like top 10-15%.
What do you think eradicating poverty and global development means? Exactly that: A developed world means a world consuming the same as, say, Europeans do.
This only works if population is reduced, even drastically reduced because, quite obviously, it does not work with 8+ billion people.
> Who should decrease the population? Western white people?
Who should remain dirt poor? Brown people?
This is ridiculous.
This is a global issue. Poverty should be eradicated globally, the global population should reduce. Do not make it a racial, if not racist, issue.
I think the developed nations can learn a lot from those who currently consume orders of magnitude less. About values and worth and happiness. And equally can invest back much of what they took from them historically into helping them develop in a sustainable way. Not through some sort of white saviour nonsense or though some drive to sell them stuff in the long term, but though financial reparations and cancelling debt, coupled with releasing IP, patents and removing any other protectionist policies.
That is just providing proof that we cannot eradicate poverty on the planet without destroying it in the process with 8 billion human beings. And this is just CO2 emissions but the issue is with consumption of resources in general: What is happening is simply that consumption of resources increases when people are lifted out of poverty (quite obviously since that's pretty much poverty means).
The only sustainable way for human development is to bring global population down at the same time at global standard of living increases.