Kind of short of rational means for deliberate population reduction on a global scale. A lottery would have to be imposed, would warp civilization. Maybe reducing fertility somehow. Abruptly reducing energy sources might work, though that would result in a messy die-off. We could put an advertising outfit to work convincing people to not reproduce, or not have children until they're over 35, or maybe not after they're 15. We could get a bit more crazy and consider the beneficial effects on evolution (punctuated equilbrium) of increasing the background radiation levels. I think a rational decision is more to the point than rational means. The trick is to avoid nasty means.
This school board is absolutely... correct. This is controversial, but the concern over climate change is misplaced. There's nothing wrong with burning gas, or oil, as such. However, there are consequences to burning a lot of petroleum, namely the climate changes and a lot of people die. The global poplulation is in serious overshoot, and the controversy should be whether we can rationally reduce the population or just let the normal beliefs of whatever faith lead us to war, starvation and epidemics. If we drag this out by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and developing renewable energy supplies and renewable fertilizer and water supplies and by not reducing the population then those surviving species will have to live on a devastated planet. This school board may help the planet by reducing the population and the global civilization sooner rather than later. Thanks, I needed the rant.
Maybe environmental stress or culture in rapid change? The Inuit of Nunavut have a suicide rate of 78/100k but a population density of 0.01/km2. I think I'd want to look at cultural groups around the world for comparisons.
Slashdot Mirror
Kind of short of rational means for deliberate population reduction on a global scale. A lottery would have to be imposed, would warp civilization. Maybe reducing fertility somehow. Abruptly reducing energy sources might work, though that would result in a messy die-off. We could put an advertising outfit to work convincing people to not reproduce, or not have children until they're over 35, or maybe not after they're 15. We could get a bit more crazy and consider the beneficial effects on evolution (punctuated equilbrium) of increasing the background radiation levels. I think a rational decision is more to the point than rational means. The trick is to avoid nasty means.
This school board is absolutely ... correct. This is controversial, but the concern over climate change is misplaced. There's nothing wrong with burning gas, or oil, as such. However, there are consequences to burning a lot of petroleum, namely the climate changes and a lot of people die. The global poplulation is in serious overshoot, and the controversy should be whether we can rationally reduce the population or just let the normal beliefs of whatever faith lead us to war, starvation and epidemics. If we drag this out by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and developing renewable energy supplies and renewable fertilizer and water supplies and by not reducing the population then those surviving species will have to live on a devastated planet. This school board may help the planet by reducing the population and the global civilization sooner rather than later. Thanks, I needed the rant.
Maybe environmental stress or culture in rapid change? The Inuit of Nunavut have a suicide rate of 78/100k but a population density of 0.01/km2. I think I'd want to look at cultural groups around the world for comparisons.
So Nunavut has 28,000 in 2,000,000 km2? He must be pleased that all 21 Nunavut communities will have wireless broadband by the end of this month!