[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.
[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.