[diverjohn (OP)]

While everyone seems concerned about shutting down fossil fuel combustion and the meat industry, I recall hearing an easier solution lies in the field of medicine. Is it true that if we offered birth control pills free of charge to the world's population, then our population growth will slow then decline after several years, thus reducing our needs for more energy, steel, concrete, and deforestation.
Is this just talk or is there some research behind this idea?
I cannot find the source.

[alancalverd]

The source is common sense (plus a paper I wrote about 16 years ago). If humans are responsible for a phenomenon, then fewer humans => less phenomenon.

[Bored chemist]

Did your paper address the big problem?
If people in the developing world rely on their children as, in effect, their pension, they will not reduce the number of children they have because they have more common sense.

[alancalverd]

Starving children will not feed their grandparents. More children on less fertile land => hunger, or dead babies. 'Twas ever thus, which is why wildebeeste, by no means the most intellectually gifted of ungulates, migrate, as do reindeer and their dependent humans.

Assuming the "big problem" is climate change, yes, my paper estimated the impact of farm animals on anthropogenic carbon dioxide, which lots of people think is important. I noted in an aside that humans emit 10% of anthropogenic CO2 in addition to generating the remaining 90% by various forms of industry (including farming). I know that you like consensus as much as I am skeptical of it, so you will be pleased to know that my estimate has formed (via the World Bank) the basis of several subsequent UN and UK Treasury publications.

[chiralSPO]

It would be interesting to compare the carbon footprints of recreational drugs vs other forms of recreation and consumption.

IMHO a dozen milligrams (or so) of THC* and a plate a falafel is more enjoyable than a glass of bordeaux* and a filet mignon.


*which is legal for. recreational use for those 21 years and older in many parts of my country.

[Bored chemist]

. I noted in an aside that humans emit 10% of anthropogenic CO2 in addition to generating the remaining 90% by various forms of industry (including farming).

Are you saying that animals or aliens are running the industry, or do you not know what anthropogenic means?

Also, are you still pretending that animals eat coal?

[Bored chemist]

Starving children will not feed their grandparents. More children on less fertile land => hunger, or dead babies.

It is true that many of the children will die.
That's why you need to make sure you have lots of them.

[evan_au]

Another effective tool in this direction is education of girls.
- If they go to school until they are 16, or 18 or (shock, horror!) even spend years at university...
- If they discover that there is a world outside their village, and learn about birth control, they tend to get better jobs, and have fewer (but healthier) children.

Some groups of people in the world can't stand the idea of an educated woman, who isn't married and pregnant by the time she is 16...

[alancalverd]

It is true that many of the children will die.
That's why you need to make sure you have lots of them.

Thanks to modern medicine and gradually improving sanitation, most babies survive until weaned. Now if you supply 500 calories per day to 10 kids, they will all die in a few weeks. If you supply 2500 calories per day to two of them, eight will die very quickly and two will thrive. So why have 10 if your land will only support two?

[TimothyHotham]

We can, but the first thing to recognise is that it is a marathon not a sprint. It is going to take decades.

The second thing to recognise is that we have already made quite a lot of progress. Although we tend to fret about the size of the challenge ahead of us, and people tend to emphasise risks rather than achievements, the truth is that we are in miles better shape than we were 20–30 years ago.

But the third thing to remember is that we have kind of had most of our easy wins. From here on out it is going to get harder. That doesn’t mean that we can’t do it, but obviously the more success we have tackling climate change, the less of a threat it will appear to be, which means people will be less enthusiastic about making the necessary sacrifices in order to do so.

[Bored chemist]

It is true that many of the children will die.
That's why you need to make sure you have lots of them.

Thanks to modern medicine and gradually improving sanitation, most babies survive until weaned. Now if you supply 500 calories per day to 10 kids, they will all die in a few weeks. If you supply 2500 calories per day to two of them, eight will die very quickly and two will thrive. So why have 10 if your land will only support two?

Why do you think starvation is the issue?

[alancalverd]

Climate change and sea level rise are already harming the most fertile delta areas (especially Bangladesh) and producing extended drought in many parts of Africa. Increased temperatures will (and probably already have) increased the size and frequency of locust invasions. Increased sea temperatures have so far done less harm that the Common Fisheries Policy but the CFP has been revised, climate change has not.

Increasing the human population whilst reducing the use of fossil fuels to make artificial fertiliser and operate farm machinery, and reforesting or rewilding for carbon capture, will certainly not increase the amount of food available per capita.

[Bored chemist]

You are missing the fundamental point. If you have surviving 2 kids then they each have to pay half of your upkeep when you are unable to work.
If you have 10 surviving kids they only need to contribute 10% each.

The rest is just a rehash of the "tragedy of the commons" It doesn't stop without suitable intervention.

[alancalverd]

If you have a subsistence farm that supports a family of n people, you have to feed n² from the same resource at the next generation. This rapidly becomes unsustainable. You can apply the same arithmetic to any group occupying any fixed plot of land.

You can usefully segment the UK population into 3 groups: A aged under 20, B 20 - 60, and C 60+. The population of A + C is almost equal to B. B are the people who actually work and support A and C directly and through taxation. If you gradually reduce A, B/(A+C) increases, so there are more resources per capita for child support and pensions. The numbers will be different for different countries but are fairly good for most of Europe and north America.

[Bored chemist]

If you have a subsistence farm that supports a family of n people, you have to feed n2 from the same resource at the next generation.

No.
mainly because you got the maths wrong, but also because you forgot what subsistence means.

This rapidly becomes unsustainable.

In any event, roughly 100,000 years of human existence means your definition of "rapidly" wants checking

You can usefully segment the UK population into 3 groups:

And then you can ignore them because the UK death rate is higher then the birth rate

[alancalverd]

Subsistence agriculture occurs when farmers grow food crops to meet the needs of themselves and their families on smallholdings.

is the definition I used. What's yours?

If I have n children and they do the same thing, the next generation will be n² because siblings don't mate in my culture. Again, yours may be different.

Homo not very sapiens has been around for 100,000 years but his life expectancy has almost doubled in the last 100 years and is now about 4 times that of our Cro-Magnon ancestors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population is worth a glance as it suggests that the current population is already unsustainable, even assuming  no climate disaster.

[Zer0]

Hi DJ!

I have a Negative comment to make, possibly Evil of sorts...

Re: Can Medicine solve Global Warming?

Possibly Yes!
By disappearing for awhile.
By letting a huge chunk of mass of people to be left out vulnerable to diseases & eventually succumb.

Yes i know, very negative & pure Evil suggestion.
But if all parents around the Globe had a choice between surviving for an extra 50 years, or having their kids thrive in abundance for next 100 years...what would they choose to do?

Ps - Covid19 is a Curse for Humans, & a blessing in disguise for Other Species.

[haris049]

Hello, I was also wondering if medicine can solve global warming but it is not possible because medicine has nothing to do with global warming, at least I think so but I think most of them also have the same opinion