to over 7.8 BILLION in 2020.

到2020年超過78億。

And still, over four babies are born every second.

但仍有超過4個嬰兒在每一秒鐘出生。

That's around 390,000 new humans a day!

每天大約有39萬個新人類!

So, on a planet with dwindling resources and an increasing strain on natural systems…

所以，在一個資源不斷減少的星球上，自然系統的壓力越來越大... ...

is curbing our booming population the key to solving our environmental woes?

抑制人口增長是解決環境問題的關鍵嗎？

Mathematically, we know that more people means more demand for Earth's natural resources.

從數學上講，我們知道，更多的人意味著對地球自然資源的需求增加。

It can be simplified into this equation: population times affluence times technology equals impact on the environment.

可以簡化成這樣一個等式：人口乘以富裕程度乘以技術等於對環境的影響。

So, the basic argument that less people would mean less greenhouse gases, less pollution, less habitat destruction

所以，基本的論點是，人少就意味著溫室氣體少，汙染少，生境破壞少。

makes logical sense.

在邏輯上是合理的。

But only on the surface.

但只是表面上的。

Because notice that other key variable in the equation.

因為注意到方程中的另一個關鍵變量。

Affluence.

人群。

The more money populations have to burn, the more fossil fuels are burned along with it.

人口要燒的錢越多，化石燃料也會跟著燒得越多。

In 2018, just North America and China were responsible for almost half of the world's CO2 emissions.

2018年，僅北美和中國就佔了全球二氧化碳排放量的近一半。

These are also the countries with the highest concentrations of the world's wealthiest people.

這些國家也是世界上最富有的人最集中的國家。

And get this—their populations are living longer and having fewer babies, so their population growth is slowing down.

而得到這個--他們的人口壽命更長，嬰兒更少，所以他們的人口增長正在放緩。

By contrast, the poorest half of the world — where most global population growth is currently concentrated —

相比之下，世界上最貧窮的一半地區--目前全球人口增長最集中的地方--則是：1.

produces only 10% of the world's CO2 emissions.

產生的二氧化碳排放量僅佔全球的10%。

These populations typically lack the technology and wealth that result in high energy expenditure,

這些人群通常缺乏技術和財富，導致能源消耗大。

increased industrialization, and pollution.

工業化程度的提高，以及汙染。

So, in climate change projections that take these imbalances into account, it's been shown that redistributing wealth —

所以，在考慮到這些不平衡的氣候變化預測中，已經證明了財富的再分配------。

so, reducing both extreme wealth and extreme poverty —

所以，減少極端富裕和極端貧困----------。

has as much impact on carbon emissions as reducing overall population would.

對碳排放的影響與減少總人口的影響一樣大。

Let's continue taking the climate crisis as our example.

讓我們繼續以氣候危機為例。

The idea that less people equals less climate change works in theory — but in practice, calculations show that's not the case.

人少等於氣候變化少的觀點在理論上是可行的--但在實踐中，計算結果表明，事實並非如此。

Even in projected scenarios where a reduction in population does make a difference in emissions,

即使在預測的情景中，人口減少確實會對排放量產生影響。

it's not enough of a difference to affect projected temperature rise.

它的差異不足以影響預計的溫度上升。

To put it bluntly, no amount of population reduction would achieve the reduction in emissions necessary

直言不諱地說，無論減少多少人口，都無法實現必要的減排。

to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius in our near future.

以期在不久的將來將全球變暖控制在2攝氏度以下。

You may have also heard that 'Just 100 companies produce 71% of the world's emissions.'

你可能也聽說過'只有100家公司產生了全球71%的排放量'。

And this is true, but if you take a closer look at that list, you'll find that those companies are oil and gas conglomerates,

這是事實，但如果你仔細看那份名單，你會發現，這些公司都是石油和天然氣集團。

and eight of the top ten aren't even companies.

而前十名中有八名甚至不是公司。

They're either fully or partially state-owned oil and gas entities in places like China, Russia, Iran, and India.

在中國、俄羅斯、伊朗和印度等地，它們要麼是完全或部分國有的石油和天然氣實體。

And that same report goes on to say that 90% of all of the emissions from those 100 companies

而同一份報告還說，這100家公司90%的排放量都來自於這100家公司

actually comes from “downstream combustion of coal, oil, and gas for energy purposes.”

實際上是來自於 "煤炭、石油、天然氣的下游能源燃燒"。

That's the energy we use — everywhere around the world —

這就是我們所使用的能源--世界各地的能源--。

to heat our homes, fuel our transport, produce our goods...all provided by those 100 companies.

為我們的家庭取暖，為我們的交通提供燃料，為我們的商品生產......都由這100家公司提供。

If we take all this information together, it boils down to this core idea:

如果我們把這些資訊綜合起來，就會歸結為這個核心思想。

it's not huge populations that are making the difference, it's huge resource usage.

這不是龐大的人口，而是龐大的資源使用量。

And this huge resource usage isn't coming from TONS of people...it's coming from relatively few.

而這種巨大的資源使用量並不是來自於大量的人......而是來自於相對較少的人。

So, it seems the thing that would make an actual difference is not a reduction in population,

所以，看來能起到實際作用的不是減少人口。

but a radical shift in the way we as a species use and share resources.

但作為一個物種，我們使用和分享資源的方式卻發生了徹底的轉變。

And at the root of it, change what resources we're using.

而從根本上說，改變我們使用的資源。

For example, the U.S. lowering its carbon usage by a third of what it is today would have a greater impact

例如，美國將碳使用量降低到目前的三分之一，將產生更大的影響。

than reducing the U.S. population by 100 million people.

比減少美國人口1億人。

So, why is population restriction such a popular go-to argument for how to tackle environmental problems like the climate crisis?

那麼，為什麼在如何解決氣候危機等環境問題上，人口限制會成為一個流行的說法呢？

Realistic solutions for population stabilization and resource redistribution

穩定人口和重新分配資源的現實解決辦法。

involve long term plans like improving gender equality in the form of women's access to education and family planning.

涉及長期計劃，如以婦女接受教育和計劃生育的形式改善兩性平等；

We should always be asking, who benefits from an idea that's not necessarily based in logic.

我們應該經常問，一個不一定基於邏輯的想法，誰會受益。

For those who say population reduction is the solution to our problems, whose population are they talking about reducing,

對於那些說減少人口是解決我們的問題的人來說，他們所說的減少誰的人口。

and for what purpose?

又是為了什麼？

Historically, this argument has been used by those who have an agenda to fulfill...

從歷史上看，這種說法一直被那些有目的的人用來實現......。

an agenda much more often driven by things like classism, racism, or xenophobia than in actual fact...

一個議程更多的往往驅動的東西 像階級主義，種族主義，或仇外心理 比實際的事實... ...

especially when the real solution is redistribution of wealth, as well as rethinking our use of natural resources —

特別是當真正的解決方案是財富的重新分配，以及重新思考我們對自然資源的使用時----。

natural resources that currently make a very small percentage of people very rich.

自然資源，目前使極少數人非常富有。

What are your thoughts on the population control argument?

對於控制人口的說法，你有什麼看法？

Let us know in the comments, and if you want more on climate change solutions, check out this video here.

讓我們在評論中知道，如果你想了解更多關於氣候變化的解決方案，請看這裡的視頻。

Subscribe to Seeker to keep up with all your debunkings of popular science myths, and as always, thanks for watching.

訂閱《探索者》，隨時瞭解您對流行科學神話的揭穿，一如既往，感謝您的觀看。

I'll see you next time.

下次見。