No, that’ll neither work to solve the problem, nor would it work as a matter of practicality.

We either need to get to 0 net emissions pretty much now, or negative emissions in the not too distant future. Even if we cut the world’s population by half through very unethical means, and did nothing else, we’d still be in trouble. We’re going to have to push forward and innovate our way out, most likely.

dumping ashes in the ocean will work much better....

Do you really think the the large part of human population around the world living in extreme poverty (multiple billion people) are the problem? As one poster said, if they do transition to "middle class" (whatever that means to them) then they will become part of the climate problem. But right now, the problem lies with us, our hyper-capitalist and super corrupt western societies. Don't distract from that with whataboutism to Africa. Currently, we (meaning western countries, not just geographically, I would count China for example as a western country as well, since to me "western" is a financial/economic definition, not a geographical one) are the problem, not the people living in mud huts, drinking water that Nestlé seized and now sells to them.

The population of China is expected to halve in 45 years. Japan down to 1/3rd of its currently level by century’s end. We are doing it already, no need to impose a heartless bureaucracy over it.

Is this sarcasm? Population controls are a massive change to quality of life for most people.

It depends what sort of population control is being suggested. Already, most people live in countries with less than replacement fertility (i.e. with a total fertility rate (TFR) below 2.1 births per woman).[0]

That means if someone wants developed countries to reduce their population, they are really arguing for stricter limits on immigration, and possibly for those developed countries to use economic pressure to make people in poorer countries have fewer children.

Even if the people advocating for that aren't motivated by racism, colonialism, or eugenicism, it might be difficult to convince people of their good intentions.

[0] https://ifstudies.org/blog/half-the-worlds-population-is-rea...

I am thinking out loud here but I am imagining a simple tax. If someone wants to have a child they pay a massive offset fee. Put another way people have to give up spending on other things or create more value for society (earn more income) to have that right. Perhaps this cutoff can be decided on a per country basis to get every country on board. It’s either that or we rely on a very complex series of technological and policy changes that are potentially not going to work out and will cause everyone to live more limited lives of restraint rather than live freely.

It is already expensive to raise a child, which puts off many of the people[0] who would otherwise make great parents, so I think you need to consider whether your simple tax would in practice mean that only the rich could have children (and whether those people would be too busy "creating more value for society" to focus much on their children's upbringing).

[0] https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/2021/10/10709356/women-fert...

expensive real estate is already working as a child tax. you want to raise kids - you need a bigger house, and with prices skyrocketing fewer and fewer parents are able to afford a child

Niger has the highest fertility rate in the world[1]. As far as I know, they don't live in palatial affordable mansions there. How are they managing to afford all those children?

[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/total-fer...

not all those children survive, thats the reason

> in practice mean that only the rich could have children

Yes that is what it might mean, but that also seems like the right incentive to me. I would argue the rich are more deserving of having children in a world with constraints. Wealth is money accumulated by getting others to voluntarily give it to you in return for valuable goods or services. Therefore it is very literally a measure of value to society. It seems morally justified to let those who produce more value to have the privilege of raising children if we have to limit it. Also, I don’t think those parents would necessarily be too busy - most probably work 9-5 like anyone else.

I don't even know where to begin, so instead I am going to pose a question that will hopefully lead to you re-evaluating your views:

How do you reconcile the concept of land ownership, inheritance, and rent-seeking with your world view?

Can you be more direct about your point instead of posing this question? I’m not sure what you’re getting at. If your point is that some people inherit wealth, then I see no problem with that both because the vast majority of the rich are self made and because it is completely valid for someone to work hard to leave their descendants with a better situation.

You literally said "Wealth is money accumulated by getting others to voluntarily give it to you in return for valuable goods or services.", so are you saying that being the child of a billionaire means you are providing them the valuable service of being an heir? It seems like the barrier to entry to providing that "service" is pretty high, and society might want to regulate that market to make it more efficient.

It's true that the majority of the rich are considered self-made[0] (although one in three are not) but it's also true that children of rich parents are at an advantage compared to children of poor parents, meaning people don't get an equal start in life. One study estimates that "adult children tend to earn another $0.33 for every dollar their parents earn".[1]

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/majority-of-the-worlds-riche...

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/parents-determine-child-succ...

> Already, most people live in countries with less than replacement fertility (i.e. with a total fertility rate (TFR) below 2.1 births per woman).

This is a textbook example of what unsustainable means. In the long run most people will live in the countries with the highest fertility rates.

> Even if the people advocating for that aren't motivated by racism, colonialism, or eugenicism, it might be difficult to convince people of their good intentions.

It's enough to let them starve.

I’m suggesting that instead of creating a web of complex restrictions and bans, why not just create a simple system that replaces all that complexity by altering a single input into the pollution equation? Fewer humans means less consumption and emission. The humans that do exist will live in relative freedom instead of being subject to authoritarian restrictions on their every action.

The vast majority of net-new carbon emissions over the next 30 years are going to be the 4 billion people in the developing world who are transitioning into the middle class.

Population controls (especially in the developed world) would be 100% pointless. Unless you're talking about invading and sterilizing people in developing countries... and I really hope you're not.

No, just countries building stronger borders to prevent ecological and economic migrants from escaping the countries that don't have enormous wealth as a buffer against change.

:(

Population controls won't fix our emissions problems. A bunch of our emissions are from things that won't suddenly stop even if we drop population growth to 0, like manufacturing and power generation.

Wouldn’t a smaller population consume less goods and power?

In the long run yes, however, (a) realistic population controls would likely mean a stable population, not a much smaller one, so that doesn't help much for deceasing consumption; and (b) even with totally unrealistic population controls (e.g. zero births worldwide) the population decrease would be slower than the time scale in which we need to reduce emissions - zero births would mean a population decrease of less than 1%/year (currently 60m deaths/year over 7.8 billion, the world skews young-ish so the death rates don't match what you'd expect from life expenctancy) but we need an emissions decrease of 1.5%-2%/year to keep the global warming in reasonable limits.

A smaller population would consume less goods and power, but since we need much less carbon emissions, achieving that through a population decrease alone would require a much smaller population i.e. so much extra death that IMHO that would be more horrible than the consequences of any climate change.

Most developed nations are not growing anymore in terms of population so this is essentially already happening without any government intervention.