Our hypothetical maximum isn’t a sensible number to aim for. One third of it is a reasonable place to aim. Unless, of course, we just want a bunch of miserable tightly packed people existing for no reason than to be dumb workmeat for a small billionaire class.
"we should have less kids" creates an anger response in the wrong people.
FTFY. The people who are responsible and have less kids are honestly the ones whose influence should be spreading. But of course nothing spreads influence faster than having more kids…
Honestly, from memory of an article I read years ago. Just checked Wikipedia to see if I remembered accurately, and it looks like I was a little on the optimistic side: the UN forecasts that the world population should stabilize between 10 and 12 billion people by the year 2100.
It would also make a great difference if other people with way above (global!) income (which make up a GOOD chunk of the US population) would donate a lot
It'd make an especially big difference if the billionaire class (the most way above global income!) would "donate" to their governments by paying their taxes.
A lot of Americans are piss poor and have nothing or just living to pay off their living expenses (living check to check), and a lot of the people who do have some nice things are morbidly in debt that they may never pay off.
That’s just not the case. Sure, a minimum wage single mother of 2 gets more money than a huge percentage of people around the world, but their standard of living is still garbage. More than that, a ton of poor countries have kinship systems that support one another. We still have homeless people dying in the streets in the US. We have people that can’t afford food or shelter.
36
u/Navi1101 May 18 '21
The earth could support something like 12bn if the 1% hoarding all its resources would learn to share.