The Swamp logo

Save the planet by population reduction-yes or no?

What will be the result if populations fall?

By Peter RosePublished 3 months ago 5 min read
Like

Save the planet by population reduction-yes or no?

What will be the result if populations fall?

Saving the planet has become an excuse for just about every “official” action and for official “non-action.” It is used to validate economic coercion on every level of every nation.

All honest scientists know that whatever governments do they will never actually reverse climate change.

Reducing pollution is laudable and desirable in its own right. The effect of pollution reduction on climate change, will, at best, be to reduce the rate of change, but it should improve the quality of life for every living creature on Earth.

The most obvious way to reduce pollution is to reduce the number of people doing it. Reduce the world population and you reduce the amount of pollution.

Consider the social impact on employment levels, all round the world that will occur because of automation and Artificial intelligence taking over the more routine clerical tasks, and you have even more incentive to reduce population levels.

BUT

What is the point in increasing manufacturing efficiency, increasing output etc if the number of potential customers is being reduced?

How will economies, under present “systems” cope?

Note what happening now in South Korea :-

Globally, developed countries are seeing birth rates fall, but none in such an extreme way as South Korea.(report seen February 2024)

Its projections are grim.

In 50 years time, the number of working age people will have halved, the pool eligible to take part in the country's mandatory military service will have shrunk by 58%, and nearly half the population will be older than 65.

This bodes so badly for the country's economy, pension pot, and security that politicians have declared it "a national emergency".

For nearly 20 years, successive governments have thrown money at the problem - 379.8 trillion KRW ($286bn; £226bn) to be exact.

Based on this information, reducing the population is going to have a disastrous effect on the economy and the national identity. And these disasters will be much more rapidly felt, than that of climate change. So, is global population reduction the wrong way to tackle global climate change?

South Korea is an industrialised democratic nation with very up to date economic and social systems. Would such drastic population reductions affect other nations in other ways? How about nations that do not have social and financial provisions for those too old to be economically active? What if South Korea was to increase the “pension age” – the age at which an individual stops contributing to the “pension pot” and starts withdrawals from it—to75 rather that 65? This instantly changes the economic dynamics.

Obviously if the population decrease goes on for long enough there will be no humans left on earth, but it is a reasonable assumption that we humans will find a way to prevent this.

How can we stabilise the social and economic effects of population reduction? How do we reconcile the demands for every increasing consumption, (as demanded by ever increasing production) with a reducing number of consumers? As with climate change itself, one of the crucial factors is the rate of change. Slow down the rate at which populations reduce and you have more time to adjust and resolve any problems. Slow down the rate of change in global climate change and you have time to ascertain the real facts from marketing hype, you have time to find realistic coping strategies not economic and political driven panic measure.

Reconciling the demands for ever increasing consumption to meet the demands created by increased production, can only be achieved by a change in attitude. If we stop expecting ever greater profits being paid to ever fewer global based, mega investment groups, and instead return to having producing enterprises that are more localised and owned by those who have day to day control, then the demand for vast profits gets reduced and the ability to adjust production to suit demand, gets improved. The problems of investment in technology being only economically viable with economies of scale and ever-expanding sales, will not go away but if the banking system was changed to finance manufacturing on local scales and –most important-- slower recovery of investment, lower rates of interest and a general acceptance of slower rates of economic activity. This may all be managed. But the possibility of the financial sector voluntarily making such change is remote in extreme. Socialism, in its more extreme application where bureaucrats with no technical knowledge or responsibility, control both means of production and the marketing of products, fails every time due to the built in human factors. To any objective thinker it is obvious that the production and supply of anything has to be controlled by people with a direct “involvement and accountability” for the efficient and successful matching of supply and demand. So, a new functional mixed economy form of governance has to be evolved. Taxpayers money goes to a national investment bank, a bank owned by the nation. This bank finances the change to more localised, more demand responsive, enterprises. Instead of constantly promoting a need for more customers the production is controlled to suit the gradually reducing population. With this situation the population will be one where individuals have a greater average economic activity than they would have with larger population numbers. This will be due to not having a large proportion of unemployed or economically inactive people. A change in attitude to “pension” age will also be needed, we will have to abandon the notion of a fixed age at which we stop work, may be reducing the hours of work to allow for age related deterioration in physical ability but not having a rigid cut off date for transition for working to not working. We then would have a true high wage low tax economy.

NB definition of pollution and climate change

Definition of pollution- One version, anything that leaves the “site” without usefulness.

Dictionary version, pollute; to contaminate, as with poisonous or harmful substances.

Global climate change definition, Climate change is a long-term shift in global or regional climate patterns. Often climate change refers specifically to the rise in global temperatures from the mid-20th century to present.--- Note under this definition global climate change is, and always has been, a continuous fact of life on Planet Erath from long before humans evolved

new world ordertechnologyhumanityhow tofinancefact or fiction
Like

About the Creator

Peter Rose

Collections of "my" vocal essays with additions, are available as printed books ASIN 197680615 and 1980878536 also some fictional works and some e books available at Amazon;-

amazon.com/author/healthandfunpeterrose

.

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.