god spede the plow and send us all corne enow
June 24, 2025 12:43 PM Subscribe
"Today, there are some 8.2 billion people on earth, more than twice as many as there were when Borlaug won his Nobel. This figure is expected to rise to almost ten billion by 2050. A few months ago, more than a hundred Nobel laureates released an open letter that echoed Borlaug’s concerns. They predicted 'a tragic mismatch of global food supply and demand by mid-century.' By their reckoning, 'we are not on track to meet future food needs. Not even close.'" Do We Need Another Green Revolution?, a review by Elizabeth Kolbert.
The article is gated, but I thought the issue wasn't "we can't make enough food to feed everyone", and rather "capitalism actively disincentivizes the owners of food production to produce enough to feed everyone".
posted by FatherDagon at 1:00 PM on June 24 [19 favorites]
posted by FatherDagon at 1:00 PM on June 24 [19 favorites]
However, as Farb (1978, p. 121) has pointed out, “intensification of production to feed an increased population leads to a still greater increase in population.” That is to say that as more food has been made available ostensibly to alleviate food shortages caused by the increased number of people, the biologically determined response has been an increase in the population.
posted by Joan Rivers of Babylon at 1:19 PM on June 24 [5 favorites]
posted by Joan Rivers of Babylon at 1:19 PM on June 24 [5 favorites]
What ever happened to ZPG?changed their name to Population connection. #LazyWeb ;-)
posted by johnabbe at 1:21 PM on June 24 [1 favorite]
Neither the word "vegetarian" nor "vegan" occur in the article according to my search.
Yes, capitalism is a huge force supporting world hunger and unmet food demand.
But so is the continued growth of meat eating. Meat eaters eat more meat now than they did in the past in the US, and this trend is echoed in most of the developed world.
I know it's unpopular to dare propose anyone but myself eat less meat. But it's objectively true that anyone deciding to less meat is a move toward more food security for everyone.
A key way to add meat to our diets that is often overlooked is entomophagy. The FAO has been telling us for years that these delicious food traditions can help increase our food and feed security through the 21st century.
posted by SaltySalticid at 1:34 PM on June 24 [19 favorites]
Yes, capitalism is a huge force supporting world hunger and unmet food demand.
But so is the continued growth of meat eating. Meat eaters eat more meat now than they did in the past in the US, and this trend is echoed in most of the developed world.
I know it's unpopular to dare propose anyone but myself eat less meat. But it's objectively true that anyone deciding to less meat is a move toward more food security for everyone.
A key way to add meat to our diets that is often overlooked is entomophagy. The FAO has been telling us for years that these delicious food traditions can help increase our food and feed security through the 21st century.
posted by SaltySalticid at 1:34 PM on June 24 [19 favorites]
This is so difficult to see through. Agricultural research is mainly driven by industry, and the few alternative approaches are often not serious.
Last time I looked, which may have been a decade ago, half the world's population were fed by subsistence farming. Agricultural industry always makes it like they are essential for feeding the world, but they are mainly feeding the relatively rich. And as the article says, they do it in a manner that generates obscene amounts of waste and pollution. Maybe large-scale agriculture as we know it today isn't the solution.
And Joan Rivers of Babylon makes a very important point -- in all regions except Africa, the populations are in decline.
climate change means that we don't really know what we will be able to grow in which regions in ten years.
And to bring it back to the individual level: we really shouldn't be eating all that animal protein and all those grains. Roots, fruits, vegetables and fungi are better for us, but agricultural industry is dominated by grains and animals.
posted by mumimor at 1:38 PM on June 24 [5 favorites]
Last time I looked, which may have been a decade ago, half the world's population were fed by subsistence farming. Agricultural industry always makes it like they are essential for feeding the world, but they are mainly feeding the relatively rich. And as the article says, they do it in a manner that generates obscene amounts of waste and pollution. Maybe large-scale agriculture as we know it today isn't the solution.
And Joan Rivers of Babylon makes a very important point -- in all regions except Africa, the populations are in decline.
climate change means that we don't really know what we will be able to grow in which regions in ten years.
And to bring it back to the individual level: we really shouldn't be eating all that animal protein and all those grains. Roots, fruits, vegetables and fungi are better for us, but agricultural industry is dominated by grains and animals.
posted by mumimor at 1:38 PM on June 24 [5 favorites]
Advocating for vegetarianism is less intrusive to personal freedumb than ZPG or war, the two other natural solutions to this problem.
posted by brambleboy at 1:38 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]
posted by brambleboy at 1:38 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]
SaltySalticid easy for you to say ;)
Jkjk actually I love chapulines so totally bring on the bugs!
posted by toodleydoodley at 1:51 PM on June 24 [1 favorite]
Jkjk actually I love chapulines so totally bring on the bugs!
posted by toodleydoodley at 1:51 PM on June 24 [1 favorite]
Human biomass is already a factor of 10 greater than the biomass of all wild mammals put together, which I think is grotesque in the extreme and a crime against nature, and people actually think we should go further down that road? Ugh!
posted by jamjam at 1:56 PM on June 24 [9 favorites]
posted by jamjam at 1:56 PM on June 24 [9 favorites]
I'm not vegetarian and I love pasta, but the situation today feels increasingly like when smoking was banned in public spaces. To begin with I was very tolerant, and allowed smoking in my home for social events. And then I limited it to the kitchen, which was furthest from the children's rooms. And now it's just off, and everyone agrees. I won't even say they "respect" it, smoking is just not right outside designated smoking areas.
Today at work I was offered a choice between a salami sandwich and a hummus sandwich and I didn't even consider the salami option, it looked disgusting to me, which wouldn't have been the case five years ago. I also didn't eat the bread of my hummus sandwich. So I believe things will change, just as they did with smoking. But tobacco is still big.
posted by mumimor at 2:01 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]
Today at work I was offered a choice between a salami sandwich and a hummus sandwich and I didn't even consider the salami option, it looked disgusting to me, which wouldn't have been the case five years ago. I also didn't eat the bread of my hummus sandwich. So I believe things will change, just as they did with smoking. But tobacco is still big.
posted by mumimor at 2:01 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]
I've never understood the insect-eating thing. Are insects more thermally efficient than mammals? ie do you get more calories from feeding your soy to a grub than to a cow?
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 2:02 PM on June 24 [2 favorites]
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 2:02 PM on June 24 [2 favorites]
> Neither the word "vegetarian" nor "vegan" occur in the article according to my search.
Nor mine. But actually reading TFA yields something almost as good:
Nor mine. But actually reading TFA yields something almost as good:
A third group wants to eliminate farm animals, or at least reinvent them. chickens, pigs, and especially cows consume many more calories in the form of plants than they yield up in the form of eggs, chops, and burgers. Getting rid of the middleman—or, really, middle creature—will, it stands to reason, make the food system that much more efficient. Grunwald talks to Ethan Brown, the founder of Beyond Meat, and Pat Brown—no relation—the founder of Impossible Foods, both of whom have created beef substitutes out of plant-based ingredients like apple extract and pea protein. Grunwald samples ice cream that has been made without any cream, “egg whites” that have been produced without any eggs, and chocolate mousse made from microbes.posted by Aardvark cheeselog at 2:03 PM on June 24 [9 favorites]
If enough people go vegetarian under capitalism, the effect will be capitalists innovating more ecologically destructive ways to produce vegetables to maximize profit.
posted by Jon_Evil at 2:13 PM on June 24 [18 favorites]
posted by Jon_Evil at 2:13 PM on June 24 [18 favorites]
No, I don't expect them to eat, Mr Powers, I expect them to DIE
[but seriously, neo-feudalism is not going to handle this challenge well at all]
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 2:36 PM on June 24 [5 favorites]
[but seriously, neo-feudalism is not going to handle this challenge well at all]
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 2:36 PM on June 24 [5 favorites]
rhamphorhynchus: Weirdly enough, yes!
On every metric, crickets excel in producing more protein with less resources. They need one gallon of water per pound of product vs beef's 1800. Take a lot less land, less energy. Doesn't cause the amount of water pollution from manure runoff that feedlots do, or require spraying lagoons of pig shit into the air. Don't need antibiotics. Instead of intensive, dangerous work slaughtering and butchering (low salaries, unpleasant conditions, prone to injuries) you can just freeze them then process them. They grow fast, with a lifecycle of just a few months between birth and harvest. And you can grind them up into cricket powder and put it into a protein bar and not even have to deal with eating anything that looks like a bug.
You can even raise them at home, like some kind of apartment 4H project.
posted by foxfirefey at 2:47 PM on June 24 [22 favorites]
crickets require just 1.5 pounds of feed for every pound of edible cricket product made. This ratio, known as the feed conversion rate, is far less impressive for other popular protein sources: 20 pounds of feed for every pound of beef, 4.5 pounds for every pound of chicken and 7.3 pounds for every pound of pork.I wonder if it's because crickets are cold blooded and don't have to spend a lot of food energy maintaining their body temperature. In a farm situation, they wouldn't even have to move around much.
On every metric, crickets excel in producing more protein with less resources. They need one gallon of water per pound of product vs beef's 1800. Take a lot less land, less energy. Doesn't cause the amount of water pollution from manure runoff that feedlots do, or require spraying lagoons of pig shit into the air. Don't need antibiotics. Instead of intensive, dangerous work slaughtering and butchering (low salaries, unpleasant conditions, prone to injuries) you can just freeze them then process them. They grow fast, with a lifecycle of just a few months between birth and harvest. And you can grind them up into cricket powder and put it into a protein bar and not even have to deal with eating anything that looks like a bug.
You can even raise them at home, like some kind of apartment 4H project.
posted by foxfirefey at 2:47 PM on June 24 [22 favorites]
No mention of birth rates or demographic transition in the article, which seem significant?
In demography, demographic transition is a phenomenon and theory in the social sciences referring to the historical shift from high birth rates and high death rates to low birth rates and low death rates as societies attain more technology, education (especially of women), and economic development. The demographic transition has occurred in most of the world over the past two centuries, bringing the unprecedented population growth of the post-Malthusian period, then reducing birth rates and population growth significantly in all regions of the world.posted by migurski at 2:52 PM on June 24 [10 favorites]
Worrying about population growth, are we? Is it 1975 again?
in all regions except Africa, the populations are in decline.
This. And if we fuck up the ecosphere, it's not Africans who are to blame.
As for meat... you don't have to be a vegetarian to think people eat too much meat, especially beef. It's obscene how much good agricultural land grows grain only to feed cows.
posted by zompist at 3:04 PM on June 24 [21 favorites]
in all regions except Africa, the populations are in decline.
This. And if we fuck up the ecosphere, it's not Africans who are to blame.
As for meat... you don't have to be a vegetarian to think people eat too much meat, especially beef. It's obscene how much good agricultural land grows grain only to feed cows.
posted by zompist at 3:04 PM on June 24 [21 favorites]
foxfirefey: Well, that's the kind of answer I come to MetaFilter for. Thanks!
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 3:18 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 3:18 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]
Also you generally can raise invertebrates on food sources that are not useful for our vertebrate livestock (or us), so there's compounding benefits to eating cricket granola bars (which are really good btw), beyond just the first-order energetics of the product lifecycle.
posted by SaltySalticid at 3:29 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]
posted by SaltySalticid at 3:29 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]
The population will never get to 10 billion: demographic transition plus all kinds of eco-disasters will prevent that.
And you can not eat meat all you want, that's up to you. And I can ignore you, that's up to me.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 3:38 PM on June 24
And you can not eat meat all you want, that's up to you. And I can ignore you, that's up to me.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 3:38 PM on June 24
ie do you get more calories from feeding your soy to a grub than to a cow?
I don’t have these numbers for insects, but have seen tables for net water consumption, energy consumption, etc. per calorie of various vegetables vs. animal products. cows are always way worse than chickens which are worse than milk and eggs which are worse than beans. I would believe insects (which aren’t constantly running an endothermic battery to keep their body at 100 degrees) are way more efficient.
(Edit: didn’t see foxfirefey’s good response)
posted by little onion at 3:40 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]
I don’t have these numbers for insects, but have seen tables for net water consumption, energy consumption, etc. per calorie of various vegetables vs. animal products. cows are always way worse than chickens which are worse than milk and eggs which are worse than beans. I would believe insects (which aren’t constantly running an endothermic battery to keep their body at 100 degrees) are way more efficient.
(Edit: didn’t see foxfirefey’s good response)
posted by little onion at 3:40 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]
No mention of birth rates or demographic transition in the article, which seem significant?
It's worrisome! "chinese rates of [meat] consumption are now also high—around a hundred and fifty pounds per person—after having doubled in just the past three decades." If every country that finds itself going through demographic transition ends up hungry for high-meat diets, that's going to put even more pressure on the system.
posted by mittens at 3:53 PM on June 24 [3 favorites]
It's worrisome! "chinese rates of [meat] consumption are now also high—around a hundred and fifty pounds per person—after having doubled in just the past three decades." If every country that finds itself going through demographic transition ends up hungry for high-meat diets, that's going to put even more pressure on the system.
posted by mittens at 3:53 PM on June 24 [3 favorites]
People want comfort and status. Meat eating is a bit of both. You somehow have to sell people on wanting different kinds of comfort and status. Which is, uh, kind of tricky.
posted by notoriety public at 4:30 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]
posted by notoriety public at 4:30 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]
I appreciate that metafiltrans mostly know that the problem is not too many people but how resources are distributed.
We could have an end to poverty and a reduction in environmental damage, but instead we are getting AI and fascism.
posted by girandole at 4:41 PM on June 24 [12 favorites]
We could have an end to poverty and a reduction in environmental damage, but instead we are getting AI and fascism.
posted by girandole at 4:41 PM on June 24 [12 favorites]
The problem is both too many people and how resources are distributed. The endless argument between the two is specious.
Fewer people consuming less equals less environmental damage. Reducing either population or consumption is helpful.
posted by Joan Rivers of Babylon at 4:55 PM on June 24 [8 favorites]
Fewer people consuming less equals less environmental damage. Reducing either population or consumption is helpful.
posted by Joan Rivers of Babylon at 4:55 PM on June 24 [8 favorites]
foxfirefey: "crickets require just 1.5 pounds of feed for every pound of edible cricket product made. This ratio, known as the feed conversion rate, is far less impressive for other popular protein sources"
What does this ratio look like for vegetable protein, though? Or is that not a question that makes sense to ask? It might not.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 5:32 PM on June 24
What does this ratio look like for vegetable protein, though? Or is that not a question that makes sense to ask? It might not.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 5:32 PM on June 24
The question is, what are they feeding these crickets and how does it compare to food for other livestock? My understanding last I looked into it is that cricket agriculture hasn’t taken off because they need higher-quality food than people had hoped. I notice the site above says “pounds of feed” but it’s not clear what that is.
There is no feed conversion rate for plants (they are the food), although you can do water and nutrient input calculations.
posted by momus_window at 6:01 PM on June 24 [3 favorites]
There is no feed conversion rate for plants (they are the food), although you can do water and nutrient input calculations.
posted by momus_window at 6:01 PM on June 24 [3 favorites]
What does this ratio look like for vegetable protein, though? Or is that not a question that makes sense to ask? It might not.
When you grow peanuts or soy or fava etc, you don't "feed" it in the same way you do animals, so no, feed conversion ratio doesn't really apply, and that quote should read "popular animal protein sources" for clarity.
Now, growing crops consumes a lot of resources, but we call those inputs, not feed. There are some studies that attempt to compare efficiency of animal and plant protein production on equal footing. Here is one example. The general idea is that yes, vegetable protein is far more efficient and causes less environmental damage than animal sources. Interestingly, plant-based protein tends to become more efficient when you focus on high-protein crops, but the efficiently in animals go the other way. Which is part of why bugs are better than cattle (which are the worst, always, and should be taxed much more heavily).
Anyway, that link is fragile so I will
items of animal and vegetable origin. Energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for food items
produced in different countries and using various means of production were compared. The results
confirmed that animal-based foods are associated with higher energy use and GHG emissions than
plant-based foods, with the exception of vegetables produced in heated greenhouses. Analyses of the
nutritional value of the foods to assess the amount of protein delivered to the wholesale point per unit
energy used or GHG emitted (protein delivery efficiency) showed that the efficiency was much higher
for plant-based foods than for animal-based. Remarkably, the efficiency of delivering plant-based protein
increased as the amount of protein in the food increased, while the efficiency of delivering animal-based
protein decreased. These results have implications for policies encouraging diets with lower environmental impacts for a growing world population.
(González et. al, Food Policy (2011) pp. 562–570)
posted by SaltySalticid at 6:02 PM on June 24 [11 favorites]
When you grow peanuts or soy or fava etc, you don't "feed" it in the same way you do animals, so no, feed conversion ratio doesn't really apply, and that quote should read "popular animal protein sources" for clarity.
Now, growing crops consumes a lot of resources, but we call those inputs, not feed. There are some studies that attempt to compare efficiency of animal and plant protein production on equal footing. Here is one example. The general idea is that yes, vegetable protein is far more efficient and causes less environmental damage than animal sources. Interestingly, plant-based protein tends to become more efficient when you focus on high-protein crops, but the efficiently in animals go the other way. Which is part of why bugs are better than cattle (which are the worst, always, and should be taxed much more heavily).
Anyway, that link is fragile so I will
quote the whole abstract here:
The production, transport and processing of food products have significant environmental impacts, some of them related to climate change. This study examined the energy use and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and transport to a port in Sweden (wholesale point) of 84 common fooditems of animal and vegetable origin. Energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for food items
produced in different countries and using various means of production were compared. The results
confirmed that animal-based foods are associated with higher energy use and GHG emissions than
plant-based foods, with the exception of vegetables produced in heated greenhouses. Analyses of the
nutritional value of the foods to assess the amount of protein delivered to the wholesale point per unit
energy used or GHG emitted (protein delivery efficiency) showed that the efficiency was much higher
for plant-based foods than for animal-based. Remarkably, the efficiency of delivering plant-based protein
increased as the amount of protein in the food increased, while the efficiency of delivering animal-based
protein decreased. These results have implications for policies encouraging diets with lower environmental impacts for a growing world population.
(González et. al, Food Policy (2011) pp. 562–570)
posted by SaltySalticid at 6:02 PM on June 24 [11 favorites]
I've tasted things made from cricket flour. I will happily never do so again.
Also, if you want to lower the birthrate, educate women.
posted by cheeseDigestsAll at 6:23 PM on June 24 [10 favorites]
Also, if you want to lower the birthrate, educate women.
posted by cheeseDigestsAll at 6:23 PM on June 24 [10 favorites]
Is it 1975 again?
What ever happened to ZPG?
I was surprised that Kolbert didn't mention The Population Bomb etc.
Also surprised she didn't mention this cheerful fellow:
Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second.
By that law of our nature which makes food necessary to the life of man, the effects of these two unequal powers must be kept equal.
This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from the difficulty of subsistence. This difficulty must fall somewhere and must necessarily be severely felt by a large portion of mankind.
posted by doctornemo at 7:15 PM on June 24 [3 favorites]
What ever happened to ZPG?
I was surprised that Kolbert didn't mention The Population Bomb etc.
Also surprised she didn't mention this cheerful fellow:
Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second.
By that law of our nature which makes food necessary to the life of man, the effects of these two unequal powers must be kept equal.
This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from the difficulty of subsistence. This difficulty must fall somewhere and must necessarily be severely felt by a large portion of mankind.
posted by doctornemo at 7:15 PM on June 24 [3 favorites]
For more on Borlaug and the question of how successful the green revolution was, check out The Wizard and the Prophet, by the always excellent charles c. Mann.
posted by cheeseDigestsAll at 8:22 PM on June 24 [2 favorites]
posted by cheeseDigestsAll at 8:22 PM on June 24 [2 favorites]
What ever happened to ZPG?
It's coming. Most predictions suggest human population will peak at around 10 billion, sometime between 2060 and 2080, then decline.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 8:44 PM on June 24 [2 favorites]
It's coming. Most predictions suggest human population will peak at around 10 billion, sometime between 2060 and 2080, then decline.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 8:44 PM on June 24 [2 favorites]
What ever happened to ZPG?
It's constantly getting drowned in a tub of Malthus Was Wrong, Population control Is Racist propaganda, then thrown out with the bathwater. Any suggestion that population growth urgently needs reining in is instantly strawmanned as advocating for the imposition of growth controls on poor countries and that's as far as the argument typically needs to go before most people just tune it out.
Sadly, Malthus was not wrong. And whatever the current population level is, anybody who argues that a condition of ongoing population growth can be sustained by any means is functionally innumerate.
The school of thought that says Human Ingenuity™ can always be relied upon to do an end run around arithmetic continues to lurch zombie-like through the discourse, eating brains left and right along the way (mostly right, to be fair).
The idea that all that's needed is educating women doesn't go far enough. Education is insufficient on its own. What's required is empowerment.
How about we each educate ourselves at least to the extent of being able to understand the applicable arithmetic, then get behind applying a bit of Human Ingenuity™ to bring on the collective change required to deal equitably with resource distribution, and to the effects of demographic shift that accompany the low birth rates that Malthus correctly identified as a consequence of satisfactorily low rates of suffering and premature death among the wealthy?
ZPG is, as Artifice_Eternity correctly notes, coming; there is, after all, only so much standing room on the planet. Exactly how it happens, and how much entirely predictable and therefore in-principle avoidable suffering is involved, and to what extent the subsequent population decline is driven by having achieved permanent miserable impoverishment rather than sustainably self-renewing abundance, is up to all of us.
posted by flabdablet at 8:56 PM on June 24 [7 favorites]
It's constantly getting drowned in a tub of Malthus Was Wrong, Population control Is Racist propaganda, then thrown out with the bathwater. Any suggestion that population growth urgently needs reining in is instantly strawmanned as advocating for the imposition of growth controls on poor countries and that's as far as the argument typically needs to go before most people just tune it out.
Sadly, Malthus was not wrong. And whatever the current population level is, anybody who argues that a condition of ongoing population growth can be sustained by any means is functionally innumerate.
The school of thought that says Human Ingenuity™ can always be relied upon to do an end run around arithmetic continues to lurch zombie-like through the discourse, eating brains left and right along the way (mostly right, to be fair).
The idea that all that's needed is educating women doesn't go far enough. Education is insufficient on its own. What's required is empowerment.
How about we each educate ourselves at least to the extent of being able to understand the applicable arithmetic, then get behind applying a bit of Human Ingenuity™ to bring on the collective change required to deal equitably with resource distribution, and to the effects of demographic shift that accompany the low birth rates that Malthus correctly identified as a consequence of satisfactorily low rates of suffering and premature death among the wealthy?
ZPG is, as Artifice_Eternity correctly notes, coming; there is, after all, only so much standing room on the planet. Exactly how it happens, and how much entirely predictable and therefore in-principle avoidable suffering is involved, and to what extent the subsequent population decline is driven by having achieved permanent miserable impoverishment rather than sustainably self-renewing abundance, is up to all of us.
posted by flabdablet at 8:56 PM on June 24 [7 favorites]
can we at least agree Malthus was wrong about his conclusions that “less industrious races” should be exterminated to mitigate the effects of overpopulation?
posted by Jon_Evil at 5:33 AM on June 25 [5 favorites]
posted by Jon_Evil at 5:33 AM on June 25 [5 favorites]
I read every article I see about the coming population collapse, and in the last few years there have been a lot of them. Every single one frames this process as a catastrophe rather than an opportunity. The media seems completely blind to the fact that human population reduction is not only desirable, but necessary and urgent, and that a rapid decrease in birth rates is by far the most humane and easiest method (even better than war, starvation, and genocide!)
Interestingly, if you read the comments on these articles (NYT), the reading public is far more clued in. Every time the NYT publishes another "OMG, what about Social Security?" article, there are hundreds of comments basically saying "you're crazy, population reduction is great!"
Which is almost enough for me to start suspecting a media conspiracy, but that sounds a bit too much like a lot of people I don't like very much.
Anyway, I never had kids, fortunately, so I don't have to worry about how to feed them.
posted by Joan Rivers of Babylon at 5:50 AM on June 25 [3 favorites]
Interestingly, if you read the comments on these articles (NYT), the reading public is far more clued in. Every time the NYT publishes another "OMG, what about Social Security?" article, there are hundreds of comments basically saying "you're crazy, population reduction is great!"
Which is almost enough for me to start suspecting a media conspiracy, but that sounds a bit too much like a lot of people I don't like very much.
Anyway, I never had kids, fortunately, so I don't have to worry about how to feed them.
posted by Joan Rivers of Babylon at 5:50 AM on June 25 [3 favorites]
can we at least agree Malthus was wrong about his conclusions that “less industrious races” should be exterminated to mitigate the effects of overpopulation?
Gonna need a cite for that pull quote, hoss.
posted by flabdablet at 6:59 AM on June 25
Gonna need a cite for that pull quote, hoss.
posted by flabdablet at 6:59 AM on June 25
Also, if you want to lower the birthrate, educate women.
I am concerned that increasing the burden of student loan debt on women may be an unwanted side effect of this strategy.
posted by Jane the Brown at 8:14 AM on June 25 [1 favorite]
I am concerned that increasing the burden of student loan debt on women may be an unwanted side effect of this strategy.
posted by Jane the Brown at 8:14 AM on June 25 [1 favorite]
The way I see it, without predation, we can either consciously make a decision to self-regulate our population or eventually face the consequences, and the calls for some sort of imposed population regulation (which are, of course, misguided and horrific).
There is no answer to exponential growth on a finite planet - in all cases it will end in overpopulation in time. I have seen claims that our population will self-regulate "magically" and plateau, but I doubt them.
2064 Global Population crisis Scenario Predicted by the Most General Dynamic Model
posted by nTeleKy at 4:25 PM on June 25 [1 favorite]
There is no answer to exponential growth on a finite planet - in all cases it will end in overpopulation in time. I have seen claims that our population will self-regulate "magically" and plateau, but I doubt them.
2064 Global Population crisis Scenario Predicted by the Most General Dynamic Model
posted by nTeleKy at 4:25 PM on June 25 [1 favorite]
Every population crash looks like a plateau. At first.
posted by notoriety public at 5:28 PM on June 25 [1 favorite]
posted by notoriety public at 5:28 PM on June 25 [1 favorite]
Human population growth has been on average decreasing its rate every year since the 1960s. We will plateau.
posted by hydropsyche at 5:43 PM on June 25 [1 favorite]
posted by hydropsyche at 5:43 PM on June 25 [1 favorite]
« Older Hot seats | Major credible offer for commodore licensing gets... Newer »
posted by sammyo at 1:00 PM on June 24 [2 favorites]