[yor_on]

But seriously, what you and me are referring to there is incomplete statistics. In climate science the demand is at least thirty years of observation before we can call it a trend. The problem is that in thirty years this might have accelerated out of control, so when the statistics comes in it won't do any good.

[yor_on]

We have some country's that will notice it faster I think, Australia being one of them. What did they call those canary's that the miners took with them down the shafts to check their air quality?

[yor_on]

Tried to google for it but couldn't find the expression. But it is fitting, earth has some canary's that will tell us faster,  if it's going out of control. Probably got it from some old book I've read over the years.

[yor_on]

It's funny in some ways. I never bothered questioning our core beliefs until I found myself forced to look at global warming. But it all goes back to them. The way we see ourselves and the way we act. And that way isn't locked to politics and neither to any specific country.

I would say it's the same all over.
And it's the real driver of global warming.

[yor_on]

Apropos both Africa and Australia.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/nov/08/indian-el-nino-behind-east-africa-flooding

[yor_on]

Watching the coal miner above reminded me of another writer. Jan de Hartog whose books I would place in the same category as Nevil Shute and Gavin Lyall. I would recommend all of them if you like books that gives you something more than just violence.

[yor_on]

And as I'm in a book reading mood, how about 'The Good Soldier Švejk ' by Jaroslav Hašek. You can't go wrong with that one and it will make you smile.

[yor_on]

Then we have this Finnish writer. Mika Waltari. I've read him in Swedish so I can't guarantee the translation but The Etruscan (original title Turms, Kuolematon which translates to Turms, Immortal) is a very nice introduction. Half mythical and half historical, and such a gifted writer.

[yor_on]

Eastern Europe has some really nice writers, like Stanislaw Lem. And  'The Master and Margarita' by Mikhail Bulgakov, that can be read entirely on its own merits, not caring for any hidden messages towards the regime it was written under.

[yor_on]

From https://ourworldindata.org/

[yor_on]

Core beliefs
combined with our natural instincts and behavior. And religious teachings. All working together.

[yor_on]

So why is the population growth slowing down?

Well, medicine, modern life, more food available, women's emancipation meaning they work and earn their own wages. New technologies freeing people, traditions changing. Then there can be other reasons too, as in you looking around, wondering what kind of future they will have.

But it's not enough. This 'peak' we will meet presuming the theory to hold is still too much.

[yor_on]

And at the same time it will create a overflow of retirees, especially in industrialized country's. Which means that your kids wages might have to cover a lot more 'social expenses' than your own wage does.

[yor_on]

There exist some really good reasons for one kid per person. The theory I mention presume the population worldwide to decline.

'"  According to a 2008 IIASA report, if the world stabilizes at a total fertility rate of 1.5—where Europe is today—then by 2200 the global population will fall to half of what it is today. By 2300, it’ll barely scratch 1 billion. (The authors of the report tell me that in the years since the initial publication, some details have changed—Europe’s population is falling faster than was previously anticipated, while Africa’s birthrate is declining more slowly—but the overall outlook is the same.) Extend the trend line, and within a few dozen generations you’re talking about a global population small enough to fit in a nursing home. "         From https://slate.com/technology/2013/01/world-population-may-actually-start-declining-not-exploding.html

But that's mathematics, presuming things to fall out as predicted.
=
syntax

[yor_on]

In a perfect world all nations then will be equally technological.
And what are the odds for that?

[yor_on]

In a perfect world soil degradation won't exist, neither will greed, wars, pollution and global warming.

[yor_on]

Because we need that perfect world to make those claims come true, and we better get it now.

[yor_on]

Ah yes, we probably will need a few earths more too, to be able to exploit new energy sources and resources.

[yor_on]

We're in a race, and we're losing.

[yor_on]

It all depends on how you imagine that future. The way we exist in our current  'developed countries' is marked by excess. We consume too much. Even if the population curve will brake on its own we're still on a collision course with global warming. The world imagined by those folks is one that might be able to stand it, presuming the population falls to one billion, presuming we can keep it diversified and healthy.

It's just not the way it seems to unfold, is it?