« On Benevolent Despots; or what philosophers can learn from the foundations of Public Choice | Main | On Catching up with Revolutionary Thoughts »

07/13/2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

ajkreider

It seems like there are some things in tension here. For one, lowering population growth rates in poor countries will have little or no effect on "environmental catastrophe", because the very poor are not significant polluters. The per capita rates are more than an order of magnitude lower for most African countries than for richer nations. If women in such nations have greater access to education, and those countries become richer, their per capita rates will go up accordingly - and very quickly, as can be seen by China's example.

Further, if rich nations reduce population, and unless productivity sky rockets, they will get poorer. And that will make higher polluting, cheaper technologies more attractive.

Given this, and the obvious moral consequences associated with avoidable poverty, all our eggs are in the technology-will-save-everything basket.

PS, the car loan bubble is so much smaller than the housing bubble of 2008 that the risks are merely recession-causing, not financial meltdown.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Here's a link to my past blogging (and discussions involving me) at: New APPS.

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad