Second reply: Impact = Population * Affluence * Technology.

The problem is not rising population, it's rising affluence and inert technology.

As people earn more, they consume more in general, and more of environmentally harmful products like meat, cars, and plane trips in particular.

Meanwhile we're not improving core technologies quickly enough.

We make buildings using Portland cement. Cement making is responsible for about 1/20 of total carbon emissions by itself. Planes are not electric yet; nor are cars. Cities are badly designed for pedestrians. Meat substitutes aren't good enough or cheap enough yet. We burn coal to make electricity, thanks to the coal industry's astroturfing campaign against nuclear in the 1960s and 1970s.

We also burn coal to make steel. We cut down forest to make biofuels, a bizarre and depraved practice.

> Cities are badly designed for pedestrians.

Eh every large city I've been to that isn't in US or Canada is extremely pedestrian friendly. To the point of being actively nicer and easier to navigate by foot than by car.

Even NYC and SF are way faster to navigate by foot/bike than by car. I've stopped using Uber in SF because it's faster (and cheaper) to get places with a rented bike.

Well there are thousands of small cities and towns which are not this way. Hell, if you leave San Francisco and go to any other bay area city it's not this way

Well the GP was saying that density is the problem but really it’s the solution. High density keeps our mess contained and reduces carbon output.

> As people earn more, they consume more in general, and more of environmentally harmful products like meat, cars, and plane trips in particular.

That is one part of the problem. But, as we have seen, there is alternatives. Because the pandemic, more people is working from home, playing video games instead of traveling or even learning new skills.

I love to travel, but also to play games or read books. A change of culture will help with that. Governments could also apply "sin taxes" to luxuries that harm the environment in favor of more social and cultural activities that hire more people but consume less natural resources.

I’m not sure the travel industry is the worst perpetrator here. But regardless, asking people to give up their traveling is simply too much. I would much rather look at commuting and the shipping industry. As well as family/friendly visits which could be done using green on-ground mass transports.

There's nothing wrong with population density. We'd do better to have people living in dense city centers instead of sprawled out into every corner of the wilderness.

COVID-19 begs to differ

Many countries with high population density have managed to deal with COVID-19 rather well, and vice-versa.

North Dakota has more than 10x the per-capita COVID-19 infection rate of New York City right now, despite having only about 0.03% of the population density.

You're comparing two cities that got hit by COVID-19 in totally different time periods. No other place in the US had a spike like NYC

Study: Urban Density Not Linked to Higher Coronavirus Infection Rates—and Is Linked to Lower COVID-19 Death Rates

https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2020/urban-density-...

We are not addicted to making babies, or at least not endlessly. Take a look at Wikipedia's list of countries by total fertility rate, and then google for charts showing what's been happening to it over the last few decades.

Most countries, the significant exceptions being in Sub-Saharan Africa, have TFR below or near replacement (2.1).

When girls are allowed to learn to read, and when people move to cities women don't have all that many kids.

Most of the world's current population growth is due to increasing lifespan.

So don't worry about managing population. In a few decades the worry will be about keeping it up, not down. (With Sub-Saharan Africa, again, as the exception.)

It's kind of weird to see the people worried about over-population come crashing into the new worry about population stagnation or decline. Both problems are hard. The only fun stage is unconstrained growth unless we can somehow reach stability without continually killing people to stay there like we used to.

We unfortunately are more addicted to sprawl than population density. We'd be better off with _more_ density.

In pre-industrial times, the population was naturally limited by food shortages. People were chronically exceeding the carrying capacity and then being culled back. They've always been "addicted" to high population density. What's the alternative? Extinction? Every species does the same, but for most of them, nobody cares about the endless hardship of living at the limit of carrying capacity.