> at this pace, the world's population is going to flatline at around 10 billion in 50 years
Is that what you're panicking about? This means that for the next 50 years, we'll continue growing. Lack of offspring of current generations is clearly not the problem here.
I still remember how in the 1980s, people were panicking that the world population kept growing, and sooner or later we were going to hit 10 billion. And now 10 billion is not enough?
It's obvious that this population growth is not sustainable. Sure, the Earth may technically be able to feed 40 billion people if we all turn vegan, but so far, we don't exactly have a good track record of dividing our resources equally. That is a far bigger issue to worry about.
Should the population grow or shrink? I don't know, but whichever we end up doing, we should do so sustainably; make sure every kid is fed, cared for, received the best possible education, and can live a happy life. And if young people don't have the time or money for any of that, not having children is the responsible choice for them. If we don't like the results, we should change our economic balance to the point that they do have the time and money to raise children.
Certainly society's economic balance is going to be drastically affected:
"Although good for the environment, population decline and associated shifts in age structure in many nations might have other profound and often negative consequences. In 23 countries, including Japan, Thailand, Spain, and Ukraine, populations are expected to decline by 50% or more. Another 34 countries will probably decline by 25–50%, including China, with a forecasted 48·0% decline (95% UI −6·1% to 68·4%). Population percentage declines do not immediately convey the associated profound shifts in age structure in these nations. Our findings suggest that the ratio of the population older than 80 years to the population younger than 15 years will increase in countries with more than 25% population decline, from 0·16 today to 1·50 (0·54–3·25) in 2100. These population shifts have economic and fiscal consequences that will be extremely challenging."
> Is that what you're panicking about? This means that for the next 50 years, we'll continue growing. Lack of offspring of current generations is clearly not the problem here.
It think it can be and it might already be. The problem is the distribution of people in age groups. If you have a lot of old people and few young people, that creates pressure on the economy.
Sustainable would not just be about the number of people, but also the number of people in each age group.
Is that what you're panicking about? This means that for the next 50 years, we'll continue growing. Lack of offspring of current generations is clearly not the problem here.
I still remember how in the 1980s, people were panicking that the world population kept growing, and sooner or later we were going to hit 10 billion. And now 10 billion is not enough?
It's obvious that this population growth is not sustainable. Sure, the Earth may technically be able to feed 40 billion people if we all turn vegan, but so far, we don't exactly have a good track record of dividing our resources equally. That is a far bigger issue to worry about.
Should the population grow or shrink? I don't know, but whichever we end up doing, we should do so sustainably; make sure every kid is fed, cared for, received the best possible education, and can live a happy life. And if young people don't have the time or money for any of that, not having children is the responsible choice for them. If we don't like the results, we should change our economic balance to the point that they do have the time and money to raise children.