Remix clone Hacker News

I don’t know what’s right or wrong but can we agree that TFR below replacement isn’t sustainable in the long term?

Even if you don’t see shrinking population as a massive problem which it will be, if the TFR remains below ~2.1 humanity won’t be here for much longer.

▲

toomuchtodo 18 hours ago | parent [-]

I disagree. The world has ~8.2B people, and has blown past 6 out of 9 planetary boundaries while headed to 9-10B people by 2100 (due to population momentum). Humanity will successfully continue on with an order of magnitude reduction in that number 150-200 years from now, based on a median global TFR of ~0.5-1. TFR isn’t going to 0. We can plan accordingly, if we choose to. We are currently on the unsustainable path; a lower TFR puts us closer to sustainability.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458

https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/population

▲

dogma1138 17 hours ago | parent [-]

You can disagree all you want but if the TFR of the world becomes as low as the one of Chile we will get to below 1 billion people world wide within less than a century and go extinct within a millennia and the latter is based on that life expectancy won’t change and if there will be that big of a reduction in population life expectancy will plummet.

I’m also not sure how much empowerment anyone will have once we are forced back to living as agrarian subsistence farmers within a few generations.

So I don’t know if you are trolling at this point or not…

▲

toomuchtodo 17 hours ago | parent [-]

Not trolling at all. Actually bootstrapping a non profit to buy unwanted fertility from people who don’t want it, to sell into carbon markets to spin up a flywheel to help everyone who doesn’t want kids to be empowered to not have them. So perhaps we just see the future and individual agency and empowerment differently.

	▲	dogma1138 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Gilead is already taken…