• Neato@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    10 months ago

    Less humans mean less innovation. It means less energy and then less emissions total, but that’s irrelevant long term. Without enough labor to support industry growth and technology, we’ll be more on the sustaining ourselves side of labor. Which means we’re far more likely to relapse into fossil fuels. Especially if the depopulation is rapid which will destabilize industries.

    • okamiueru@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      The argument that any number of human will stochastically offset its own emission through science and technology is patently absurd. You need a certain amount of people in order to sustain hi tech infrastructure. But 8 billion now and still 8 billion in 2080, which would be the largest possible “natural” change in trajectory of global population, one of the best things for humanity when it comes to global emissions.

      The more likely trajectory of 10.5 by 2080 is much more likely to lead to exhaustion of resources and ecosystems, not to mention lead to more wars, famine, and global warming, all of which will fuel each other.

      If you want innovation and advancement of human knowledge. The thought of “make more babies” being an important factor is funny as hell. Thanks for the chuckle.

    • Peddlephile@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      That’s where automation comes in to do the menial repetitive jobs and the remaining humans take on more complex tasks. Everything will work itself out.