I don’t think a modest reduction in population is bad in the medium term—I think AI is likely to compensate on the economic growth front, which would be my biggest concern. I think less people might give us a bit more runway on climate change. I don’t buy the climate change section above, and this statement “Reducing birth rates now doesn’t reduce emissions in the next 25 years” is factually wrong I think. Why would it not? There’s decent evidence that families carbon consumption rapidly increases after having a kid (buying more stuff, driving more, bigger houses)
I’m not sure of the definition of “depopulation” though. I definitely don’t think rapidly falling populations are good either. I think this article predicts too far into the future though some weird doomer conclusions—ironically it feels similar to environmental doomerism in a way. I think If populations dramatically drop and immigration doesn’t compensate, I think states will just heavily incentivise having more kids and likely solve the problem. I don’t think that’s necessary at the moment.
Obviously I’m not the kind of utilitarian who thinks that more net-positive people automatically means a better world. Fair enough if you are—in that case I think its hard to argue that more people isn’t just better.
You’re right that families emit more carbon once they have a child. But I think it’s worth pointing out that that the marginal carbon cost of additional children in a family is likely sharply decreasing. This is due to within-family economies of scale and because a lot of carbon is embodied in durable goods.
I’d guess that (for many readers of the book) less air travel outweighs “buying more” furniture and kids toys, at least. But the larger point isn’t that the change is literally zero, but that it doesn’t make a sufficiently noticeable change to near-term emissions to be an effective strategy. It would be crazy to recommend a DINK lifestyle specifically in order to reduce emissions in the next 25 years. Like boycotting plastic straws or chatgpt.
Updated to add the figure from this paper, which shows no noticeable difference by 2050 (and little difference even after that):
There have been a couple of studies showing that families with kids emit more than those without. Including this one from Sweden, where they emit 25 percent more.
That graph just shows that IF we manage to get emissions to plummet late in the century then a difference of 15 percent in population by 2100 might not make much of a difference to climate change. That’s fine but there are many assumptions there.
I don’t think having a few less people changes the game in climate change, but nor do I think it’s very bad in other ways either.
I’m not sure that empirical data point about families is as telling as you think it is. Emissions are tied to total economic production. If total economic production doesn’t go up, its hard to see how emissions go up much. The story by which an extra baby causes more economic production has to run through something like a demand-constrained economy (eg we’re in a recession where more demand really does translate to more production).
In reality my best guess is that total production is ~unchanged when a new baby is born (or maybe even falls a bit, if a parent pulls back from the labor force), which means the additional purchases of a household with a baby are offset by slightly fewer purchases elsewhere in the economy. (Obviously once that baby is old enough to themselves work, that does increase production and emissions).
I don’t think a modest reduction in population is bad in the medium term—I think AI is likely to compensate on the economic growth front, which would be my biggest concern. I think less people might give us a bit more runway on climate change. I don’t buy the climate change section above, and this statement “Reducing birth rates now doesn’t reduce emissions in the next 25 years” is factually wrong I think. Why would it not? There’s decent evidence that families carbon consumption rapidly increases after having a kid (buying more stuff, driving more, bigger houses)
I’m not sure of the definition of “depopulation” though. I definitely don’t think rapidly falling populations are good either. I think this article predicts too far into the future though some weird doomer conclusions—ironically it feels similar to environmental doomerism in a way. I think If populations dramatically drop and immigration doesn’t compensate, I think states will just heavily incentivise having more kids and likely solve the problem. I don’t think that’s necessary at the moment.
Obviously I’m not the kind of utilitarian who thinks that more net-positive people automatically means a better world. Fair enough if you are—in that case I think its hard to argue that more people isn’t just better.
You’re right that families emit more carbon once they have a child. But I think it’s worth pointing out that that the marginal carbon cost of additional children in a family is likely sharply decreasing. This is due to within-family economies of scale and because a lot of carbon is embodied in durable goods.
I’d guess that (for many readers of the book) less air travel outweighs “buying more” furniture and kids toys, at least. But the larger point isn’t that the change is literally zero, but that it doesn’t make a sufficiently noticeable change to near-term emissions to be an effective strategy. It would be crazy to recommend a DINK lifestyle specifically in order to reduce emissions in the next 25 years. Like boycotting plastic straws or chatgpt.
Updated to add the figure from this paper, which shows no noticeable difference by 2050 (and little difference even after that):
There have been a couple of studies showing that families with kids emit more than those without. Including this one from Sweden, where they emit 25 percent more.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200415152921.htm
That graph just shows that IF we manage to get emissions to plummet late in the century then a difference of 15 percent in population by 2100 might not make much of a difference to climate change. That’s fine but there are many assumptions there.
I don’t think having a few less people changes the game in climate change, but nor do I think it’s very bad in other ways either.
I’m not sure that empirical data point about families is as telling as you think it is. Emissions are tied to total economic production. If total economic production doesn’t go up, its hard to see how emissions go up much. The story by which an extra baby causes more economic production has to run through something like a demand-constrained economy (eg we’re in a recession where more demand really does translate to more production).
In reality my best guess is that total production is ~unchanged when a new baby is born (or maybe even falls a bit, if a parent pulls back from the labor force), which means the additional purchases of a household with a baby are offset by slightly fewer purchases elsewhere in the economy. (Obviously once that baby is old enough to themselves work, that does increase production and emissions).