I do have to say, I’ve never understood the European/Western liberal (in the broad classical sense, not the “social democratic sense”, but more strongly among social democrats) impulse to devalue one’s own culture and values so very much that one would rather go extinct in the process of helping others than survive in any form.
Yes, our planet cannot currently sustain a population of 9 billion (projected population peak in 2050) living at Western standards of income/consumption. Population reduction and/or (inshallah!) space colonization are necessary for humanity to live sustainably. This does not mean that we should segregate the species by belief into “Those who believe in sustainability”, who then go extinct from non-breeding, and “Those who believe in having as many babies as possible”, who then suffer an overpopulation crisis right quick.
I do have to say, I’ve never understood the European/Western liberal (in the broad classical sense, not the “social democratic sense”, but more strongly among social democrats) impulse to devalue one’s own culture and values so very much...
I think you are confusing correlation for causation. I don’t think the sustainability movement is largely responsible for declining birth rates, but rather that Western culture values many other things OVER child rearing, andmore advanced civilization requires delaying child birth until later. Most of the adult couples I know who are childless aren’t childless for ethical reasons, but instead for things like careers,etc. This isn’t a devaluing of culture, its the expression of it.
Hence, France managed to bring back their declining birth rates by making it easier to have kids, so the trade-off between (for instance) career/family is lessened. I’d be happy to see other first world countries address the problem in similar ways.
Yes, our planet cannot currently sustain a population of 9 billion (projected population peak in 2050) living at Western standards of income/consumption. Population reduction and/or (inshallah!) space colonization are necessary for humanity to live sustainably.
Do you expect space colonization before 2050? Anyway, historically colonization didn’t significantly reduce homeland population size.
Extremely difficult to forecast, since we’re already in political turmoil in many parts of the world. I can’t really say what sorts of governments will be in power by 2050.
We may be able to create stable colonies off-planet, and we almost certainly will be able to in 100 years, barring total nuclear war or self-replicating paperclips eating the planet or something. What we don’t have the technology to do is to move a significant fraction of Earth’s population off-planet—that would cost in the high trillions of dollars even at cargo launch rates to LEO, and human-rated launches to any of the places we might actually want to colonize are much more expensive. Economies of scale could improve this, but not enough.
Space elevators or one of their relatives might make this more attractive in a “not burning all of Earth’s available hydrocarbons” sense, but the energy balance is still pretty daunting.
We may be able to create stable colonies off-planet, and we almost certainly will be able to in 100 years
Earth-dependent outposts, e.g. an ISS on Mars, possibly yes, at great financial expenses and risk for those who would live there. Self-sustaining colonies, no.
I do have to say, I’ve never understood the European/Western liberal (in the broad classical sense, not the “social democratic sense”, but more strongly among social democrats) impulse to devalue one’s own culture and values so very much that one would rather go extinct in the process of helping others than survive in any form.
Yes, our planet cannot currently sustain a population of 9 billion (projected population peak in 2050) living at Western standards of income/consumption. Population reduction and/or (inshallah!) space colonization are necessary for humanity to live sustainably. This does not mean that we should segregate the species by belief into “Those who believe in sustainability”, who then go extinct from non-breeding, and “Those who believe in having as many babies as possible”, who then suffer an overpopulation crisis right quick.
Sustainability yes, voluntary extinction no.
I think you are confusing correlation for causation. I don’t think the sustainability movement is largely responsible for declining birth rates, but rather that Western culture values many other things OVER child rearing, andmore advanced civilization requires delaying child birth until later. Most of the adult couples I know who are childless aren’t childless for ethical reasons, but instead for things like careers,etc. This isn’t a devaluing of culture, its the expression of it.
Hence, France managed to bring back their declining birth rates by making it easier to have kids, so the trade-off between (for instance) career/family is lessened. I’d be happy to see other first world countries address the problem in similar ways.
That’s usually my first explanation, actually. You’re probably right and I just got misdirected.
Do you expect space colonization before 2050?
Anyway, historically colonization didn’t significantly reduce homeland population size.
Extremely difficult to forecast, since we’re already in political turmoil in many parts of the world. I can’t really say what sorts of governments will be in power by 2050.
I don’t think it’s matter of politics. We don’t have the technology for space colonization, neither now nor in the foreseeable future (~100 years).
We may be able to create stable colonies off-planet, and we almost certainly will be able to in 100 years, barring total nuclear war or self-replicating paperclips eating the planet or something. What we don’t have the technology to do is to move a significant fraction of Earth’s population off-planet—that would cost in the high trillions of dollars even at cargo launch rates to LEO, and human-rated launches to any of the places we might actually want to colonize are much more expensive. Economies of scale could improve this, but not enough.
Space elevators or one of their relatives might make this more attractive in a “not burning all of Earth’s available hydrocarbons” sense, but the energy balance is still pretty daunting.
Earth-dependent outposts, e.g. an ISS on Mars, possibly yes, at great financial expenses and risk for those who would live there. Self-sustaining colonies, no.
Jayman provides a pretty interesting story for why Western liberalism might be the way it is.
http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/liberalism-hbd-population-and-solutions-for-the-future/