this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
31 points (94.3% liked)

Degrowth

741 readers
188 users here now

Discussions about degrowth and all sorts of related topics. This includes UBI, economic democracy, the economics of green technologies, enviromental legislation and many more intressting economic topics.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al 15 points 4 months ago (2 children)
[–] Montagge@lemmy.zip 11 points 4 months ago

Where do you think all of these people came from?

[–] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 months ago
[–] SineIraEtStudio@midwest.social 5 points 4 months ago

Interesting read. I'm inclined to agree with the author that the UN 2086 population peak is BS and humanity will hit population peak sooner (potentially in the first half of the century).

United Nations’ expert “model” appears to have picked an arbitrary long-term fertility rate out of who-knows-where to which all regions asymptote, abruptly abandoning their current declines to head for theory-land! I’m honestly a bit aghast.

[–] chumbalumber@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 months ago

Yonic is a word you might find useful

[–] 967 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The drop in population in historical civilizational collapses are much sharper than even World3 would indicate. World3 assumes perfect allocation of resources, technological investments with no unforeseen effects, no military, war, pandemics, natural disasters, etc.

[–] MrMakabar 2 points 4 months ago

Especially technological investments can very much mean a higher population as well. Say we find a way to easily cure cancer for example. That means people live longer and that means a higher population.

[–] dumples@kbin.social 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That articles always mention the economic models will cause catastrophic disasters since they are based on infinite growth. But economics models are notoriously bad. They can never perfect a recession and predictions are almost never hit. So why would this be any different. We will get by but maybe just in a different way

[–] MrMakabar 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Economic models are bad at predicting the exact time of a recession, but basically all economist can agree that we will have a recession in the future. We had enough of them in the past.

However the point in the article is that we live on a planet with limited resources and resource consumption and the size of the economy are linked. So the idea is that we run out of resources. A good example of that is climate change. We have a limited somewhat save carbon budget and are on the edge of moving past it. This is why we see a massive heat wave in India right now, for example. That heat wave is really bad for the economy. This is one of the ways civilizations have collapsed in the past.

[–] 967 3 points 4 months ago

Also I'd like to add: if the maths behind economic models have yet to be perfected (and are inadequate), we can still look to historical examples as models for collapses from resource shocks. Some good examples include the Late Bronze Age (likely drought), Mayan (drought from warming), Khmer (drought), Ming (drought from cooling), which are all climate/resource related. Food has been the primary energy resource besides wood (which has also led to collapses), but nowadays oil might hold that title. I do think it's possible that we may get by in a different way, but that's only because there's others things we still missed out on our better models (new invention, alien contact, nuclear physics breakthrough, divine intervention, nature of reality revelation, etc.)