this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
111 points (93.7% liked)

World News

32323 readers
1004 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Sorry but this is a good thing. Earths population is too large for the resources available.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

My instinct is that you’re right, but I wonder if what we’re really saying is that earth’s population is too large under the currently dominant socioeconomic and lifestyle constructs.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

It's clearly the current lifestyle. Africans are destroying the world much less than the industrialized world because they're too poor to live the climate-wrecking lifestyle of the West.

A key issue though is that it takes a while for lifestyles to change. The higher the population, the quicker the switch needs to be done to avoid catastrophic consequences.

If the Earth's population were 100 million, it might be fine to take a century to switch away from fossil fuels. But at nearly 10 billion, if it takes a century, the results will be catastrophic.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

In the end, that's more or less the same thing. But the question is, do we need more people? It's also easier to be sustainable if we require less.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

I mean, yes but also no. There's just way too many people, period. Merely 60 years ago the human population was sitting around 3 billion people. Now it's 8. Earth's resources are finite, and at this rate of growth I would not be surprised if we ran out of non-renewables (with no renewable alternatives that scale as well as non-renewables) in our lifetime or our children's.

load more comments (6 replies)