Ask Science
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
view the rest of the comments
Not sure there is a sensible way to "choose" the outcome of having 5% population.
Reducing the fertility rate already happens on a steep level, even if the fertility rate is reduced to something like 0.1 births per woman, it will still take 50-70 years for that to have a meaningful effect on the population size.
The only way to reduce climate change via population control would be to kill the large majority of the world's population. And we know that it won't hit the wealthy high-polluters.
The other way would be to limit the pollution per person, at least until the natural population decline has gone far enough that we don't have a climate change problem any more.
That's, btw, the only thing that's something of a reason to be optimistic: Climate change is dependant on the population, so if the world population drops back to a few 100 millon, climate change will also go back down comparatively rapidly (in the order of maybe 50-100 years). So if we manage to limit it now, it will likely automatically become a solved problem.
Limiting the pollution now would be quite easy. We'd just have to remove the world's top 1% (preferrably by cutting their wealth down to manageable levels), stop motorized travel, stop globalized production, stop building new buildings, stop any livestock keeping, stop using fossil fuels and a handful of similar things and climate change is gone within 12 years.
We'd basically have to get rid of capitalism for that to happen.
I was talking about choosing less development.
But yeah, I agree on the necessity of getting rid of capitalism for these scenarios to work out
So it depends on what you mean by less development. At this point since most of easy fossil fuels have been mined, we may no longer be able come back from a civilization reset. There’s no way to fuel an industrial age.
Consider LED lighting and solar panels. These are vital to have any hope of turning things around but they require a certain level of development of civilization. If we drop below the ability to k produce things like this, we’ve suddenly increased our dirty energy needs. And some people are hoping for nuclear or even fusion saving us but the require even more advanced civilization.
Hence my phrasing: going back, whatever that may mean, or forward, whatever that may mean.
We will always progress into the future. Going "back" to a more local agricultural society coexisting with nature can also be seen as progress. Progress is not the same as technological advances, we can progress as a society or as humanity. And we probably need a mix of both: coexistance with our environment and technological innovation. A framing of the question being either about progress or regression is utterly useless.