That is not the same as “making it a worse place”. We don’t automatically have a better live if we have excess resources that we do not use.
That is “using up limited resources”. But even then I could argue that future kids are going to work towards (further) reversing that trend, developing sustainable technologies, recycling existing resources.
There has been essentially no fighting for land in most parts of the world since WW2. Most wars have not been about land anymore. The wars that do happen do not correlate with the birth rate.
I find it interesting how you ignore me pointing out that what you quote does not back up your previous claim.
Does having children in a first world country with declining population affect poor people in Africa?
Suddenly not having children means a lot of issues for those getting older. A slow decline, on the other hand, is not such a big problem for societies. It is the sudden change that comes at a high cost.
Yes, advanced countries are have incredibly high per capita consumption, and a lot of that comes from Africa. Just one examples is large corporations restricting access to water for their own use, causing many people to lose access to clean water.
Today it is widely accepted that people are putting an unsustainable strain on the world’s finite resources – a phenomenon that’s highlighted by “Earth overshoot day”, the date each year when humanity is estimated to have used up all the biological resources that the planet can sustainably regenerate. In 2010, it fell on August 8. This year, it was 28 July.
At the global scale, scientific data indicates that humans are living beyond the carrying capacity of planet Earth and that this cannot continue indefinitely. This scientific evidence comes from many sources worldwide. It was presented in detail in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005, a collaborative effort involving more than 1,360 experts worldwide.[2] More recent, detailed accounts are provided by ecological footprint accounting,[3] and interdisciplinary research on planetary boundaries to safe human use of the biosphere.[4] The Sixth Assessment Report on Climate Change from the IPCC[5] and the First Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by the IPBES,[6] large international summaries of the state of scientific knowledge regarding climate disruption and biodiversity loss, also support this view.
The majority of studies estimate that the Earth’s capacity is at or beneath 8 billion people.
That is not the same as “making it a worse place”. We don’t automatically have a better live if we have excess resources that we do not use.
That is “using up limited resources”. But even then I could argue that future kids are going to work towards (further) reversing that trend, developing sustainable technologies, recycling existing resources.
There’s constant war fighting for land, and tens of thousands die every day from starvation. Take off the rose colored glasses.
“Future kids will solve this problem so we don’t have to worry about it” is a selfish and unjustified perspective.
There has been essentially no fighting for land in most parts of the world since WW2. Most wars have not been about land anymore. The wars that do happen do not correlate with the birth rate.
I find it interesting how you ignore me pointing out that what you quote does not back up your previous claim.
Population surges tend to cause conflict and competition for resources if unaccompanied by productivity growth and unmediated by strong institutions
The global population is projected to exceed 10 billion by 2100. This 50% increase, as well as ongoing climate change, are likely to exacerbate the demand for natural resources. An often ignored consequence might be greater conflict, especially since much of the population growth and adverse effects of climate change will take place in areas with weak institutions and myriad economic, social, and legal problems.
More than a third of 50 recently surveyed Nobel laureates cited “population rise / environmental degradation” as the biggest threat to humankind.
a) The Earth’s per capita ability to supply basic food resources for humans will decline (Deutsch et al., 2018; Riegler, 2018). b) Supplies of potable water will decline. c) The average standard of living will decline, probably with a continuously increasing unevenness of access to resources. d) Human immigration pressures will increase dramatically, mostly directed to those places on the planet that retain the highest levels of access to the remaining resources.
You want me to prove that not having enough resources makes it harder to live somewhere? I absolutely backed up my point with those quotes.
Does having children in a first world country with declining population affect poor people in Africa?
Suddenly not having children means a lot of issues for those getting older. A slow decline, on the other hand, is not such a big problem for societies. It is the sudden change that comes at a high cost.
Yes, advanced countries are have incredibly high per capita consumption, and a lot of that comes from Africa. Just one examples is large corporations restricting access to water for their own use, causing many people to lose access to clean water.
Would the people in Africa be better of without selling resources?