On what base? If it’s about resources, there are plenty renewable resources for even more people than now. It’s more about how we use them. If people live like americans then I agree.
the planet is at a breaking point
That’s more to do with the unsustainable way we treat the planet. So, more to do with the systems in place than the amount of people.
[citation needed]
3 billion was an estimate for long term sustainable population size with first world living standards (Europeans are just as bad as Americans for the planet). If you mean surviving at subsistence levels then that number can go up a lot, but you have to accept droughts and natural disasters killing lots of people from time to time.
If these estimates have changed I would like to update my understanding.
Basically, the population is predicted to naturally decrease, any active efforts to reduce the population is not only unnecessary but will be plagued by questions about racism, eugenics, and social justice.
Then, the belief that there are too many people shifts the blame from the ones responsible of our unsustainability to the common folk. It will redirect efforts to build a sustainable society to reducing population. But we were unsustainable even with a tiny fraction of our population. It’s now how many we are, but how sustainably we behave.
For the population link, the arguments make no sense to me. Population growth is slowing, but is still going up. There is not enough resources to support 9 billion people unless most of them live at a low level. There is more then just energy included in ‘resources’ so no amount of solar power fixes the issue long term currently.
Population growth is slowing, but is still going up
Look at the population pyramids of the US, Europe, China, India. Population’s reaching the peak. Only Africa is not yet at its peak, probably for economic reasons.
There is not enough resources to support 9 billion people unless most of them live at a low level.
My turn to play the [citation needed] card :^)
There is more then just energy included in ‘resources’ so no amount of solar power fixes the issue long term currently.
Sustainability and renewables also mean resources being dug up stay in the loop and can be recycled. There’s no physical reason not to be able to reuse a lot of the resources we need.
You can’t just say “citation needed” and then provide no citation for your quite big claim, that’s just dumb. Does your source take into the account that whole EU is supposed to transition to clean energy by 2055, for example? Or that (theoretically) we have the ability for our power grids to run pretty much for free (obv with maintenance) if we do pivot into 100% renevable? I have no idea, tho my assumption would be that they don’t.
No, ur not getting it. Theoretical projections have to have a methodology, and obviously cannot take everything into account. You bring up a figure, but I have no idea what is the projected state of the world you speak of, whether it projects that attempts of transforming the grid like that of EU would be ineffective, or that it’s a statement about the current state of infrastructure. Without the source I find that figure completely arbitrary, and you had the audacity to ask for a source in the very same message
I really don’t remember. This was from a college class decades ago. I am sure it is out of date and am hoping for better estimates. I will look for it myself, but i was hoping the person whose comment I replied to might have some links.
Bullshit. The planet kinda is at a breaking point, but due to irresponsible exploitation of resources. India, despite having over 4 times the population of US, actually produced slightly more than half as much CO2, their emission per capita being over 7 times lower (https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/ if you want to dispute my source, I do admit I chose the first google link). Yes. That is just one metric, yes, India can be criticized for a lot of things, but as for right now I see global warming as the #1 environmental threat, and that does not directly map to population density at all, moreso to what kind of infrastructure there is and how efficient it is. By natural properties of scaling things up, sufficient infrastructure sustaining denser populated areas becomes (obviously up to a point) more efficient. And yea, a place can be overpopulated, but not an entire planet, not in any currently feasible scenario
I assume you said that jokingly, but if not, I cannot really agree
US has notoriously inefficient infrastructure and I forgot the actual data but, continuing comparisons to India, have like 7 or so times smaller population density. So like, US is far from overpopulated, the correct answer is infrastructure focus.
deleted by creator
Why not?
deleted by creator
But… that’s becoming a parent…
deleted by creator
That logic is completely adultered.
There is a very small percentage of individuals that take for themselves and control resources they have no need for.
Eliminate that and 90% of the problem is solved.
And what is stopping people to adopt? Pride? Or perhaps an overzealous system?
On what base? If it’s about resources, there are plenty renewable resources for even more people than now. It’s more about how we use them. If people live like americans then I agree.
That’s more to do with the unsustainable way we treat the planet. So, more to do with the systems in place than the amount of people.
[citation needed]
3 billion was an estimate for long term sustainable population size with first world living standards (Europeans are just as bad as Americans for the planet). If you mean surviving at subsistence levels then that number can go up a lot, but you have to accept droughts and natural disasters killing lots of people from time to time.
If these estimates have changed I would like to update my understanding.
https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/content/uploads/2022/03/How_many_Earths_2022_EN_sm.jpg
Feel free to look at the sources and data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation#Criticism
Basically, the population is predicted to naturally decrease, any active efforts to reduce the population is not only unnecessary but will be plagued by questions about racism, eugenics, and social justice.
Then, the belief that there are too many people shifts the blame from the ones responsible of our unsustainability to the common folk. It will redirect efforts to build a sustainable society to reducing population. But we were unsustainable even with a tiny fraction of our population. It’s now how many we are, but how sustainably we behave.
For the population link, the arguments make no sense to me. Population growth is slowing, but is still going up. There is not enough resources to support 9 billion people unless most of them live at a low level. There is more then just energy included in ‘resources’ so no amount of solar power fixes the issue long term currently.
Look at the population pyramids of the US, Europe, China, India. Population’s reaching the peak. Only Africa is not yet at its peak, probably for economic reasons.
My turn to play the [citation needed] card :^)
Sustainability and renewables also mean resources being dug up stay in the loop and can be recycled. There’s no physical reason not to be able to reuse a lot of the resources we need.
You can’t just say “citation needed” and then provide no citation for your quite big claim, that’s just dumb. Does your source take into the account that whole EU is supposed to transition to clean energy by 2055, for example? Or that (theoretically) we have the ability for our power grids to run pretty much for free (obv with maintenance) if we do pivot into 100% renevable? I have no idea, tho my assumption would be that they don’t.
Don’t get distracted, the European comment was just because I get tired of the whole ‘our shit doesn’t stink’ attitude.
No, ur not getting it. Theoretical projections have to have a methodology, and obviously cannot take everything into account. You bring up a figure, but I have no idea what is the projected state of the world you speak of, whether it projects that attempts of transforming the grid like that of EU would be ineffective, or that it’s a statement about the current state of infrastructure. Without the source I find that figure completely arbitrary, and you had the audacity to ask for a source in the very same message
who did the estimate? was it the think tank wlthat came up with “carbon footprint”?
I really don’t remember. This was from a college class decades ago. I am sure it is out of date and am hoping for better estimates. I will look for it myself, but i was hoping the person whose comment I replied to might have some links.
Bullshit. The planet kinda is at a breaking point, but due to irresponsible exploitation of resources. India, despite having over 4 times the population of US, actually produced slightly more than half as much CO2, their emission per capita being over 7 times lower (https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/ if you want to dispute my source, I do admit I chose the first google link). Yes. That is just one metric, yes, India can be criticized for a lot of things, but as for right now I see global warming as the #1 environmental threat, and that does not directly map to population density at all, moreso to what kind of infrastructure there is and how efficient it is. By natural properties of scaling things up, sufficient infrastructure sustaining denser populated areas becomes (obviously up to a point) more efficient. And yea, a place can be overpopulated, but not an entire planet, not in any currently feasible scenario
Sounds like people in the US shouldn’t have kids then.
I assume you said that jokingly, but if not, I cannot really agree
US has notoriously inefficient infrastructure and I forgot the actual data but, continuing comparisons to India, have like 7 or so times smaller population density. So like, US is far from overpopulated, the correct answer is infrastructure focus.