[yor_on]

That would indeed prove to be a revolution, and we would neither need to fight each other, or our earth.
Doesn't mean you will do it :)

I left out instincts, didn't I?
It goes against our grain, doesn't it :)

Well, that's where intelligence comes in.

[yor_on]

One problem, and a major one with ideas like this, is a lack of communication and education. The fastest growing Countries are also those least developed. https://www.boldsky.com/insync/pulse/2019/countries-with-fastest-growing-population-129007.html

That mean that they still find a lot of kids to be a natural insurance for their future. And a lack of education combined with no good means of communication also mean that their traditional values won't be questioned.

[yor_on]

So that is what we need to export, if we want it to have effect.
Education and communication.

[yor_on]

And as always it will be the kids leading, you know, the one you have to lift away from his computer game.

[yor_on]

But it has to be done, we can't wait for it, or we can but then there will be human tragedy's. Migrations and small arm wars, combined with shortsighted geopolitics and greed. In a worst case leading us into major wars.
=

It better be noted that global warming will act whatever we do. And migrations will still happen and so will small arm wars. It's about limiting it as good as we can at the same time we prepare those kids for a better future. You can also see it as bringing some hope to a very bleak situation. That's the last thing you lose.

[yor_on]

you can't sit and wait for it to 'solve itself'. Because you will become involved, one way or another.

[yor_on]

and what it will leave if we allow it to go astray is a devastated earth.

[yor_on]

but we also need to stop investing in fossil remains. Even as it hurts your wallet, because it will. That's where equality and sharing will be needed. The idea of some percent of humanity 'owning' our earth is a doomed one, and is blatantly obvious if you think about it. They don't 'own' anything more than their lives, same as me.

[yor_on]

We need to find new ways to satisfy ourselves.

[yor_on]

So we still come back to the same idea.
We need to change, you need to change.

It won't be easy but it needs to be done.

[yor_on]

the population growth above was a extrapolation to what should be the result up to 2100. That's the date when the 'peak' of population growth is projected to start reversing.

The CIA had this " Population growth rate compares the average annual percent change in populations, resulting from a surplus (or deficit) of births over deaths and the balance of migrants entering and leaving a country. The rate may be positive or negative. "   https://www.cia.gov/LIBRARY/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/344rank.html

Maybe more interesting as it should be about what actually happens.

[yor_on]

What we should see if we accepted one kid per person is a slightly negative rate of population growth. It should hopefully mean more resources per person and give more room for the the rest of nature.

[yor_on]

A positive figure is what is needed as soon as there are more elderly than young, according to GDP. Which in its turn means that you will need immigration if you want the pension to still pay out as promised. But the more high tech your country becomes the more educated that emigrant will need to be. Or you will have to give it a generation more before his kid has grown up.

[yor_on]

GDP is a bad measure.  https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/01/gdp-frog-matchbox-david-pilling-growth-delusion/

[yor_on]

Seems the world bank has some good ideas, surprisingly so :)

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/01/30/world-bank-report-finds-rise-in-global-wealth-but-inequality-persists

[yor_on]

 " While investments in human as well as produced capital are essential, getting rich is not about liquidating natural capital to build other assets, the report notes. Natural capital per person in OECD countries is three times higher than in low-income countries, even though the share of natural capital in total wealth is just 3 percent in OECD countries.

“Growth will be short-term if it is based on depleting natural capital such as forests and fisheries. What our research has shown is that the value of natural capital per person tends to rise with income. This contradicts traditional wisdom that development necessarily entails depletion of natural resources,’’ said Karin Kemper, Senior Director, Environment and Natural Resources Global Practice at The World Bank.

The report estimated that the value of natural capital assets doubled globally between 1995 and 2014. This is due, among other reasons, to increased commodity prices along with a rise in economically-proven reserves. In contrast, productive forest value declined by 9 percent while agricultural land expanded at the cost of forests in many areas. "

Now, what does it state?

[yor_on]

Da** those hunter gatherers  :)

They should have received a Nobel Price in economy. Ah well, it only took us some century's to find it out.

[yor_on]

Now, the real problem for our existing system based on inequality is how to join such research with the current divide between rich and poor, in as well as out of your country.

[yor_on]

A 'service industry' geared to serve the rich?
How about that?

Too transparent, isn't it?

[yor_on]

Let us give it some thought :)