I wish the author of this article would have commented on the possible socio-economic consequences of depopulation. I can just imagine millions of elderly people with no young workforce to provide even the most basic human services. Only the wealthiest elderly people would survive. You couldn't even rely on your child to care for you because they may be caring for their in-laws in another city, state, or country. With a lack of workforce and rapidly aging population it could lead to massive government debt, lack of production and worldwide economic collapse. There's got to be a better way.

But worldwide economic collapse would be the best possible thing for the environment.

thisislissa:

But worldwide economic collapse would be the best possible thing for the environment.

Widespread poverty is likely to increase environmental destruction. To say nothing of the horrible consequences for the poverty stricken themselves. But, of course, the fate of humanity means nothing to eco-nazis.

What's the point of preserving the earth for our future generations if they are going to live in abject poverty and misery?

He mentioned one economic point: That an additional person will cause $20,000 in "carbon damage" over their lifetime.

Given that the average person creates FAR MORE than $20,000 in economic benefits over their lifetime, it seems to me that babies would be a very very good thing.

Unless we want to total extinction of the human race, then we have to remember that it is humans who solve problems as well as create them - and that on average most humans contribute to the world more than they take out of it (they die with money in the bank and don't over-use social assistance - not to mention the positive externalities they create through trading with others through their lifetimes)

With the sole remaining exception of carbon emissions, economic wealth eventually leads to improved environments - and carbon has only been a concern for no more than a decade. I have a feeling that over the next few years as people get richer still and realize it is an issue wealth will lead to lower emissions of carbon as well - just like every other environmental "damager" we reduced in the past.

Humans help the environment???? Have they helped the gray whales who are now doomed to extinction? Have they helped the penguins and polar bears who will be extinct within 15 years probably? Have they helped the species that used to live in the Amazon rain forests that humans are destroying? Have we helped the buffalo who used to live here in North America? Have we helped the lions, tigers and gorillas who we are killing off? The only species I can think of that we really help are head lice.

last sparrow, you are forgetting pigeons, starlings, rats, mice, dogs, cats, cows, chickens, raccoons, sheep, goldfish, goats, and of course crabs (pubic lice).

any time there is a discussion about children, someone has to mention that it's the young people who take care of the old people and support their pensions, etc....

i personally do not plan on being a decrepit old person needing the help of a whole lot of young people. ( at least not until i'm so old that it doesnt really matter.) but beside that point, i don't understand how the argument is relevant. we have a LOT of people that are of working age right now that are not adding all that much to society- criminals in prison, paris hilton.... i mean, if we only placed value on those in society who are beneficial, if that's what's seen as the criteria for inclusion into society, we'd have another form of genocide on our hands. you can argue for or against, but it's not a fair argument to make this about young v. old, or about the supposed dependence of the old on the young. we're all in this together, remember.

zahniser7:

In the US we are safe with this happening and a replacement of 2.1. In China, Russia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Holland, etc; hey are not. I commented on this in my own post Them or Us. Surely you know the answer to this?

Increased retirement ages. The retiring at age 65 is a phenomenon from decades ago, when the 65 yr old was only about as healthy as today's 78 yr old. Most of the 'what'll happen to national productivity' and 'how will baby boomers be supported' problems can be solved if retirement ages are raised 5-6 years.

Technological incentives to substitute capital for labor. Free up folks doing menial jobs worldwide, and have them move into 'service' (including nursing) instead. USA may not have that many folks left who're doing slogging menial work that can be done by machines, but worldwide there are a LOT of them. Train 'em, and relax immigration policies.......

(Of cutse, europe, which is moaning and groaning about 'aging population' the most doesn't want more immigrants because they have -- DOUBLE DIGIT unemployment in many cases. Jeeeze -- you're hardly facing a masive labor shortage if 1 out of 10 of your potential workers are sitting around twiddling thumbs!!!!).

The earth is not populated by humans alone. For hundreds of years, we have acted as if we were some superior species, killing animals and plants at random, invading their habitats and making life unbearable for all and sundry.

Finally, it has come a full circle and we are suffering from our own actions. We can either continue like this till carbon emissions, nuclear spills, global warming et al takes it's toll on our grand kids so that they become walking radioactive dumps (probably in abject poverty or misery) or do something about it.

If we can't improve the planet for ourselves, at least make it better for those species that never agreed to our tinkerings with nature.

How many Katrina's do you want your progeny to face?

I would hope my progeny would be smarter than to live below sea-level, depending on questionable levees, ignoring clear warnings of imminent disaster, and not having the resources to leave when told to do so.

Of course, I'd also hope my government, which is always promising to save myself from myself, would actually respond to such a disaster in an timely and effective manner ... ha!