Can having no children save the planet? GINK – green inclinations, no kids

Melb69 on 20/01/2019 - 07:15
Last edited 24/01/2019 - 20:51

Saw this poll yesterday and aside from whether you believe in climate change or not this post is on whether having no children is a solution to Co2 emission and thus reduction in climate change.

https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/432956 Have an opinion in that thread and poll on climate change.

The population is known to be 1 of the factors in Co2 production. We were at 1B and now heading well into 7.7b and more.

1 child produces 58.6T of emissions a year.

This is a loaded topic. Interested to see what others think and I'll make a conclusion IMO from what I've read as to whether its the right thing to do to save the planet

IN CONCLUSION: IMO and some other experts.
Not having children will not make much difference what so ever in reality. There are many lifestyle factors that need to be taken into account. As GINKs with double income no kids they are more likely to have higher income and thus more likely to spend that on non environmental friendly activities and pseudo environmental causes(well you dont just need to not have kids to be in this group). They end up travelling more by plane which is another large emissions producer. Use other non environmental friendly transport to get around on their travels. They buy an electric car that really isnt all that environmentally friendly as its charged by non green sources. At least they feel good about it. Those batteries once requiring removal as they are no longer effective become environmetal issues.

MORE: GINKs are a bit deluded if they think they can use not having kids to save the world. Just have kids and be more environmenatally aware of how you do your day to day things. If everyone makes a smaller carbon foodprint in their day to day lives it will make more of a difference.

General Discussion

Comments

    • [Deactivated] on 20/01/2019 - 17:13
      +2

      In WA the number of adoptions each year is in the singe digits. (we looked into it when doing IVF) I think other states are also very low.

      • railspider on 22/01/2019 - 12:28

        You're saying in the entire state of WA, there are less than 10 adoptions a year? That seems unbelievable.

        Edit: Wow, I looked it up and you're not far off. 36 adoptions in WA for 2017-18, 330 for all of Australia. That is crazy low!

        In the last 25 years the most adoptions in a year was 855 in 1995, still not that many. Do you have any idea why Australia makes adoption so difficult?

        (You can find more data here - NSW make up the bulk of all adoptions. 214 of the 330 last year.)

    • Scrooge McDuck on 21/01/2019 - 01:39
      +1

      Instead of having babies, people need to look into adoption. But the process here is screwed up

      Indeed. Why make new when there are plenty already in need? Make your legacy your memes not your genes!

    • HighAndDry on 21/01/2019 - 12:55
      +4

      No thanks - If I was going to raise kids, I'd have more faith in my own genes than someone else's.

      • [Deactivated] on 22/01/2019 - 23:45

        Afraid socialism is hereditary eh?

  • CyberMurning on 20/01/2019 - 09:07
    +5

    How about people who have children just because they like/want, and think the government should help with the expenses later on.

    Like: don't worry government will help us, we are struggling, part time jobs, and less than $3k saving in bank, but I want kids because it's a must to have and they are cute.

    • Melb69 on 20/01/2019 - 09:32

      Ok. This is another issue altogether. People that can't afford children probably shouldn't have them if they want to rely solely on the government to fund them. Like with all things you need to look at your own cost of living and work out if you can afford it. Sure you can make sacrifices to care for your kids. I don't want to say you can't have kids if you want them, but if you are in a lower socio demographic maybe you should look at your situation first.

      On my topic though GINKs would help this case. Another justification for not having kids. Lesser of a cost burden on the government and they could use the money against climate change.

      • HighAndDry on 21/01/2019 - 19:18
        +1

        I don't want to say you can't have kids if you want them

        This is part of the problem - people are so damned nice and sensitive. WHY don't you want to say this? It should be perfectly fine to say: "If you want kids but can't afford them, you shouldn't have them." None of this tip-toeing around the facts bs.

    • tryagain on 20/01/2019 - 10:05

      A bit like people who drive car's and then get into an accident and then expect the government should help with the medical expenses because they like/want good health?

      • 87percent on 20/01/2019 - 10:41
        +2

        Or the people (on this forum) who drive cars without insurance!

        • idonotknowwhy on 23/01/2019 - 06:47
          +1

          This is one *very! rare occasion where I wouldn't mind the government stepping in and taking away a choice from us.

          Third party insurance should be mandatory. No third party insurance, no VicRoads/equivalent registration.

          I also wouldn't mind if people had to re sit a driving test periodically. It seems like some people lose the ability to drive properly but still retain their licences.

      • HighAndDry on 21/01/2019 - 12:56
        -1

        Depends who's at fault for the accident. Pretty sure by far the great majority of kids are to people whose fault it is for the kid in the first place.

        • tryagain on 21/01/2019 - 19:12

          Assuming those at fault for this comparison

    • bmerigan on 21/01/2019 - 19:14

      I guess you aren't meaning to rely on the government for medical expenses or school expenses?

  • flywire on 20/01/2019 - 10:26
    +6

    The planets fine but life on earth is stuffed. The economy just doesn't value it.

    • try2bhelpful on 20/01/2019 - 10:41
      +2

      Tend to agree with you. If/when we drive ourselves, and every other species, to extinction then the earth will just start over again. Millions of years means nothing on a cosmic scale.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 21/01/2019 - 01:48

        If/when we drive ourselves, and every other species, to extinction then the earth will just start over again.

        Typical environmentalist misanthrope response — thinking inside the box.

        Millions of years means nothing on a cosmic scale.

        There are plenty of worlds on the cosmic scale. Earth isn't the only one.

        • try2bhelpful on 21/01/2019 - 15:00

          You doubt what I'm saying? You are the one thinking inside the box thinking only human kind matters on the earth. We already have the conditions to support life and the earth will stabilise back to this state, once whatever man does has "aged" out. Surely I am fitting with you preference in that I'm saying that whatever we do doesn't matter in the long run.

          • Scrooge McDuck on 21/01/2019 - 15:52

            @try2bhelpful:

            You doubt what I'm saying?

            I disagree that humans will drive ourselves and/or every other species to extinction.

            But that wasn't my point. Even if humankind turned the entire Earth into a dump, there are plenty of new worlds to exploit.

            • try2bhelpful on 21/01/2019 - 19:39

              @Scrooge McDuck: The reality of the situation is we won’t get anywhere in the time we have left. Every planet in our solar system is very hostile to human existence. Dream on, if it makes it more bearable, but reality will bite us in the end.

              • Scrooge McDuck on 22/01/2019 - 01:44

                @try2bhelpful: I thought it was common knowledge that there are large scale plans to terraform Mars. It only stands to reason that if we can warm the Earth enough to make it uninhabitable, we can warm Mars enough to make it habitable. There are also plans to mine asteroids. If Mars is lacking in a resource an asteroid could have it's orbit altered so that it intercepts Mars.

                In my opinion, we will branch out to Mars and even leave the Solar System long before Earth is uninhabitable. Actually I don't even see that happening until the Sun diverges from the main sequence over a few billion years.

  • altomic on 20/01/2019 - 10:33
    -5

    Maybe GINKs could commit suicide in an eco-friendly way, and then their brave and pragmatic sacrifice will balance the CO2 usage of kids.

    • Melb69 on 20/01/2019 - 10:51

      Its like electric car owners in Australia who think they are saving the world. Unless your getting that electricity to charge those batteries solely from wind, hydro power, or solar you are fooling yourself. Hydrogen is the way to go, but that is far from workable yet. Thanking those in advance though who are buying these cars as it will make it cheaper for the rest of us when the green power is truly supplied.

      Before those that have their own solar panels and storage batteries to charge their electric cars. When you run out of juice its likely the power isn't coming from green sources at the charging stations, but brown coal power stations…..

      • trapper on 22/01/2019 - 13:46

        Where do you think hydrogen comes from?

  • Diji1 on 20/01/2019 - 10:45
    -2

    In approximately 80 years scientists are saying you will not want to have children as the earth's food and water supplies suddenly disappearing will lead to hell on earth as the entire globe goes to war over dwindling resources.

    So that's your grandchildren.

    In approximately 300 years the Earth will no longer be capable of supporting human life after feedback loops have turned the planet into something approaching Venus.

    According to scientists.

    • Melb69 on 20/01/2019 - 10:54

      The way that population growth and the climate change is going is not sustainable. Those meat lovers will need to find other options for protein. Not the shake type.

      • Gandalf the Thrifty on 20/01/2019 - 12:05
        +1

        When soy crops and pre-activated almond trees start failing, those plant lovers will have to find something else to eat too…

      • Scrooge McDuck on 21/01/2019 - 01:50
        +2

        Those meat lovers will need to find other options for protein.

        Super Supreme?

    • smartazz104 on 21/01/2019 - 22:50
      +1

      as the earth's food and water supplies suddenly disappearing

      Why would they "suddenly disappear"?

  • matt3 on 20/01/2019 - 11:04
    +4

    I just want to contribute to the conversation by saying that my (3) kids contibute more than 58.6T of emissions a year as they love their Baked Beans. Sorry World.

    • Melb69 on 20/01/2019 - 13:00

      Glad I'm not around for those. Well the cow's probably should go as well.

      • ravonda on 21/01/2019 - 10:47
        +3

        That's so rude of you to say that of his wife!! >:(

    • Scrooge McDuck on 21/01/2019 - 01:52

      I just want to contribute to the conversation by saying that my (3) kids contibute more than 58.6T of emissions a year as they love their Baked Beans.

      You could capture their methane and sell it as natural gas to offset the costs of child rearing.

  • ImpedeSquare on 20/01/2019 - 11:48

    Here's a related article:
    https://www.the-trouble.com/content/2019/1/4/deathly-salvation

    IRL Thanos advocates literal thermonuclear war to halt climate change. And to stop human extinction as well.

    • HighAndDry on 21/01/2019 - 12:57

      I feel like thermonuclear weapons might contribute to global warming…

      • ImpedeSquare on 21/01/2019 - 13:18
        +1

        It won't really matter if everyone's dead!

    • brendanm on 21/01/2019 - 20:47
      +2

      Thanos did nothing wrong

  • Stimps on 20/01/2019 - 11:55

    The best place to start would be local by reducing immigration to near zero and heavily investing in renewable energy.

    • Melb69 on 20/01/2019 - 13:01

      Then who are we going to get to do all the work we don't want t do ourselves. Pick fruit and work on the farms as labour.

      • poboy on 20/01/2019 - 15:00
        +7

        Anyone that recommends cutting immigration to zero generally doesn't think more than one step ahead.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 21/01/2019 - 01:54

        Then who are we going to get to do all the work we don't want t do ourselves. Pick fruit and work on the farms as labour.

        Dole bludgers.

      • HighAndDry on 21/01/2019 - 12:58
        +2

        No one until they pay enough to attract people to do it, like any other job.

  • boomramada on 20/01/2019 - 12:00

    I like the idea, so in few generations, we wouldn't have no more annoying greenies. Yay

    • Melb69 on 20/01/2019 - 13:02

      They will rule the world.

    • releasethekr4cken on 22/01/2019 - 14:10

      I don't not think that's correct

  • Half Price Hunter on 20/01/2019 - 13:06
    +6

    Populations stabilise and decline as birth control becomes widely available and acceptable in individual cultures/societies. Educate and provide populations with the means to control their own fertility, and population numbers will stabilise. It has already occurred in most developed nations, and those communities who refuse to accept birth control also end up with unwanted births.

  • HardlyCharly on 20/01/2019 - 13:31
    +1

    People should only have kids if they legitimately want them. Sadly for a very large percentage of the population that isn't the case, they just feel obligated to, or want something to do for the next 20 years because otherwise they wouldn't have anything else in their lives, or are simply too dumb to understand birth control. My husband and I genuinely want kids and wouldn't give that up, but we definitely feel like the people described above should. Population control in some form is inevitable of course.

    • HighAndDry on 21/01/2019 - 12:59
      +2

      if they legitimately want them.

      And can support them.

    • ely on 23/01/2019 - 19:51

      My wife and I had a child because I thought I might eventually want one and my wife was getting old enough that it was better to be safe than sorry. We don't necessarily have the luxury of waiting until we legitimately want them, we have to anticipate what we want in the future.

  • Seraphin7 on 20/01/2019 - 14:12
    -6

    If all the Green Leftists don't have children, the planet may just have a hope.

  • whooah1979 on 20/01/2019 - 14:26
    +1

    Global warming is an environmental correction. The sooner it happens, the sooner we may more on .

    • Melb69 on 20/01/2019 - 14:28

      With humans part of the cause.

      • whooah1979 on 20/01/2019 - 14:32

        No species are meant to exist forever.

        • Melb69 on 20/01/2019 - 18:52

          Who says that? Why can't humans be that species. You might as well blow up the world now then. As long as we are here we should try and make it worth our while.

        • ely on 23/01/2019 - 19:51

          Nobody is meant to anything. Might as well try :D

  • tsunamisurfer on 20/01/2019 - 15:53
    +5

    Stop giving aid to any country for famine and starvation. Famine whilst horrible is a great corrector of human mistakes, over populating a country or continent that cannot sustain itself is folly.

    Stop all child related welfare in Australia.

    • whooah1979 on 20/01/2019 - 18:34

      Those countries that are suffering from famine and starvation produces the least amount of CO2.
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_…

      • RockyRaccoon on 20/01/2019 - 19:39
        +1

        Of course that's true, but it's partly a chicken and the egg argument.

        If they dont have energy, or production of food, then their CO2 is lower. And without that they starve. Also the CO2 figures you list doesnt include calculation of CO2 from agriculture.Nor does it consider methane etc

        Plus when they then migrate to countries which do produce more CO2 and the cycle continues.

        CO2 production comparison figures you linked to are based on

        The data only consider carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and cement manufacture, but not emissions from land use such as deforestation. Emissions from international shipping or bunker fuels are also not included in national figures,[2] which can make a significant difference for small countries with important ports.

        The carbon dioxide emissions of a country are only an indicator of one greenhouse gas. For a more complete idea of how a country influences climate change, gases such as methane and nitrous oxide should be taken into account. This is particularly so in agricultural economies.

        Countries that use Nuclear energy, which we also consider bad, create less CO2

      • HighAndDry on 21/01/2019 - 13:00

        Still >0.

        • ely on 23/01/2019 - 19:53

          Not necessarily a net > 0 though.

      • smartazz104 on 21/01/2019 - 22:52

        produces the least amount of CO2

        They produce the least of many things no doubt.

    • trapper on 22/01/2019 - 13:49
      -1

      Stop giving aid to any country for famine and starvation.

      This is one of the few things we should be giving aid for.

    • Melb69 on 20/01/2019 - 18:49
      +6

      Oh dear. Another sceptic.

      • try2bhelpful on 20/01/2019 - 19:45
        +4

        You get the feeling, if Zachary was a dinosaur, he would've thought the asteroid coming closer to the earth was just a big cloud.

      • Zachary on 20/01/2019 - 20:50
        -3

        Don't believe? Watch this

        • try2bhelpful on 20/01/2019 - 22:42
          +5

          Give a report from scientists, who know, rather than some rinky dink news source. I can link idiots who will swear the moon landings didn’t happen and 911 was an inside job.

          • RockyRaccoon on 21/01/2019 - 08:11
            +1

            @try2bhelpful: Which scientists are you referring to and how many. What percentage of those who are really "experts" in climate studies.

            Its not helpful when there is the call of "sceptic" should anyone question the science

            The Oft quoted 97% (or 97.4% ) just doesnt seem creditable.

            If someone says its 1% impact then that would be classified, legitimately, as "humans impacting climate change"

            As well statistics used arent well defined and are subject to manipulation at worst and errors at best.

            Eg Singapore per capita carbon dioxide emissions dropped from 11.0 in 2010 to 6.6 in 2012 then rose to 10.3 in 2014

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_…

            So did Singapore have a mass exodus of people on holidays in 2012, or did they all start walking, then tired of walking and go back to cars etc.
            Or did someone screw up the figures in 2012? or were the reporting parameters changed, or did some external factor like emissions trading credits change the data?

            The whole matter is complex, and simplifying things doesnt help us.

            Unfortunately while well-meaning, the 97% isnt creditable and does more damage to the argument. This oft quoted percentage was from 9 years ago (2010) based on data from even earlier times. Things change with new information. (hey it could be even more now)

            Having people question the data keeps it honest, and yes like the data itself the ability to question can be misused by both sides, that's life and part of the rights we have with free will etc.

            • try2bhelpful on 21/01/2019 - 15:04
              +3

              @RockyRaccoon: Sorry, mate you can keep quoting whatever psuedo science you want but I will stick with actual scientists quoting actual statistics associated with actual climate change. Have a look at the statistics from now, not 9 years ago and you will see the same thing. You are playing the fiddle whilst Rome, quite literally, burns.

              • RockyRaccoon on 21/01/2019 - 15:15
                +1

                @try2bhelpful: So some scientists quote some figures that show some climate change. I dont dispute that.

                You say look at the statistics, I am saying which ones, you ignore that

                Yep some even say Rome will burn, but again when? 10 years 20 years 2000 years

                Hell you will die, thats a scientific fact.

                Just like its a scientific fact that you were born.

                My point is that just making sweeping statements doesnt progress your argument.

                You say pseudo science - whats that mean. Easy to say harder to prove

                Still like those on BOTH sides this seems to be the way to argue something.

          • Zachary on 22/01/2019 - 15:39

            @try2bhelpful: Did you even watch it….?

        • bmerigan on 21/01/2019 - 19:17
          +1

          LOL at Youtube as a source.

          • Zachary on 22/01/2019 - 15:42

            @bmerigan: Well youtube can be a decent source, sure may not be a professional-like-isque but it is a source nonetheless for videos…

            I was also converted by some random when I too thought we were causing global warming, now I am unsure but skepticism is still a good thing to have….I could delve more into the subject my doing more research if I wanted to, but that video will be enough for me to provide said skepticism needed.

            • vvvvv on 22/01/2019 - 16:56
              +1

              @Zachary: Please do delve in some more and do some more research (not just on the side of skepticism)

    • bmerigan on 21/01/2019 - 19:18
      +1

      Reminds me of the cartoon which says:
      What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?

      http://greenmonk.net/2010/01/07/what-if-we-create-a-better-w…

      • RockyRaccoon on 22/01/2019 - 09:06

        Good link

        And looking at the comments, everyone agrees, but for different reasons.

        To sum up.

        1. There are those who think it means we waste our time for nothing
        2. There are those who think it means why not we will improve evrything anyway

        Perfect example of existing bias giving an answer wanted, rather than looking at other possibilities.

  • SnakeCasablanca on 20/01/2019 - 22:08
    +3

    If you're worried about the carbon footprints of people on this planet and arguing for less people…

    In the words of Jordan Peterson "there's an easy solution to that, you could leave!"

    • ely on 23/01/2019 - 19:55
      -1

      Damn, I wish he would.

      • SnakeCasablanca on 24/01/2019 - 09:38

        Good luck on finding that magic lamp. Because he's here to stay! :)

        • ely on 25/01/2019 - 01:38

          Maybe he'll figure out an appropriate morale stance eventually :D

  • Bid Sniper on 20/01/2019 - 22:14

    / facepalm

    • frewer on 21/01/2019 - 00:01

      About why OP is "In Penalty Box" or about the attempt minimize a complex issue to CO2 emission?

      If it is an "issue" in the first place …

  • haemolysis on 20/01/2019 - 22:32
    +4

    There’s a difference between positive, negative and… neutral. Not having kids doesn’t fix anything. It just doesn’t make things worse. Or better? It’s just neutral.

    Having said that, and I’m about to get philosophical in a manner that would piss off both greenies and “hurr durr gotta pass on my family name it’s my life purpose” cavemen alike: you probably shouldn’t worry about the impact of your future generations. Who cares if the world burns.

    Worry about your own life. Your kids and their kids and so on will exist - or not - long after you’re gone whether you receive any benefit - or not. And when you are dead it will be meaningless to you. They could save the earth and create utopia. They could usher in the apocalypse.

    All that will matter to you, is your enjoyment while you’re still alive. That is: do you enjoy kids?

    I don’t. They’re gross and they’re not an ozbargain.

    • negger on 22/01/2019 - 16:43

      Don't you believe in reincarnation?

    • captaincabinets on 23/01/2019 - 20:58

      So your view is nihilism / hedonism. Sounds like a fair worldview really. I'd say in general it's better for people with those inclinations not to have kids, they seem pretty incompatible.

      • haemolysis on 24/01/2019 - 01:58

        Hedonism, sure. Nihilism, no. I am not implying a lack of meaning in the world, rather, simply implying that your virtues only matter to you when you’re still around to enjoy the benefits. Who cares what your kids do?

  • SpaceNinja on 20/01/2019 - 22:43

    gink
    /ɡɪŋk/Submit
    noun INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN
    a foolish or contemptible person.
    "what is this gink doing?"

  • Ocean on 20/01/2019 - 23:48
    +3

    Hi Dedbny,
    Good question so replying for balance. Australias 1.8 or so kids per family in 0.3% of population arent going to affect emissions diddly. However raising educated informed kids will likely benefit a changing world. Having children will give you a longer term perspective which will enrich your life and probably make you more environmentally aware as you care about the world they are left. Also fun making them.
    Cheers

  • Cunning Linguist on 21/01/2019 - 00:01
    +3

    A while back I remember being at a conference with a speaker from one of the with a speaker from one of the top tier consultancies (might have been PWC but can't really remember) on the subject of population growth. It pretty much stated that the commonly held belief that world population is growing exponentially is not necessarily true, and if history repeats itself it will flatten and eventually decrease on it's own accord.

    The principle behind this is based largely on the fact that population growth by birth is driven by developing countries and as these countries develop, marked by meteoric rise of the middle class the birthrate of these countries will reduce drastically. China is right now going through it's golden age driven by a rising middle class , and will according to this theory see a reduction in their birthrate. India is not far behind and I recall them predicting the last continent to go through this will eventually be Africa and as birthrates fall so too will immigration.

    It makes sense, if you look at just about every current developed country's population growth is generally driven by immigration rather than it's natural birthrate - Australia, US, Canada, UK and most of Western Europe.

    Really stretching my memory but I think the modeled cap was something like 11 billion in 70 years before world population will actually flatten and start reducing naturally. There's an argument that if we can actually support developing countries getting there sooner the better it will be for everyone. Easier said then done but at least there's some comfort in knowing that we'll get there eventually assuming we don't all kill each other or turn the planet into a toxic desert.

  • Thaal Sinestro on 21/01/2019 - 02:08

    We really do need to downsize the population, and to couple this with a shaft away from hyperconsumption (give capitalism the boot). Voluntarily reducing birth rates is a nicer way of doing this than forced sterizilation or death camps. 0.5 to 1 billion is about the maximum long term carrying capacity of planet earth. There is only a finite amount of arabale land, potable water, and minerals. A significant amount of land and waterways have already been trashed by humans, and this will only increase in the future. A huge number of species are becoming extinct due to overharvesting and/or loss of natural habitat. Humans are solely to blame for this, and the dominant ideology of capitalism/neo-liberalism greatly augments the harm done by homo sapiens.

    When it comes to children we should focus on quality rather than quantity, a small population of intelligent, educated, affluent humans that care about one another rather than pursue narcissistic and selfish individualistic goals. Overpopulation creates intense competition for scarce resources leading to poverty, hate, tribalism and wars. All political parties in Australia believe in growth, infinite growth on a finite planet (that's why I don't vote). Endless, unrestrained growth is the ideology of a cancer cell. Cancel cells kill the host, just as humans are killing Gaia. The cure is socialism, not fake Bernie-style democratic socialism but true socialsim where private property is abolished.

    Update: I just remembered that the world is ging to run out of phosphorus is 50 years time. Without phosphorus fertilizers, agricultural input will halve. Good luck supporting 10 billion humans in 2070 (I'll be dead by then). Here's a article on the subject: https://theconversation.com/how-the-great-phosphorus-shortag…

    • trapper on 22/01/2019 - 13:53
      +1

      Phosphorus is the 11th most common element on earth, I'm sure we can figure something out ;)

  • negger on 21/01/2019 - 05:36
    +6

    Controversial topic but here we go. Religion also has an impact on the number of children. I read somewhere that muslim population tend to encourage as many children as possible and because of this other religious leaders in many parts of the world encourage their followers to procreate more to prevent them being far less in numbers.

    • aerom on 22/01/2019 - 04:15

      @negger i think that is islamophobia, iran, turkey are few muslim countries with low birth rates, bangladesh is getting better in its improvement on birth rates and is faster than largely non-muslim neighbour india. There is no definite marker of birth rate trend.Though better condition for women generally pushes towards lower birth rate even that is capped at some stage.
      On average, world birth rate is hovering around 2.3 ish. And that is almost replacement level (its 2.1 for "developed" countries and gets higher as countries are "poorer"). We should see population decline in a generation or two given all other things being equal.
      Also immigration control doesnt change the dynamics much, environmental impact is global problem shifting it to other countries will not make it go away, (almost like moving factories to china wont help with carbon emmisions).

      • ozhunter on 22/01/2019 - 04:29
        +2

        i think that is islamophobia

        how so?

        • aerom on 22/01/2019 - 04:46

          Singling out islam as the reason for increasing muslim population. Or should i say pointing out than singling. "be fruitful and multiply" is considered christian, i am sure we can find similar things in other religions. That is why i counteracted with the trends in few muslim countries. population growth is a bit more complex than a certain religion or region.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join