Except that’s not true at all “overpopulation” isn’t a major problem its resource extraction, waste, terrible distribution on and on boiling down to capitalism.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t lower our per-capita ecological footprint, we absolutely should, but that’s not sustainable.
Sure, there are a lot of quick wins to be had, especially in wasteful countries like the US, but the more you lower your footprint the harder it gets to reduce it even more. It will never be zero.
The way it looks now we’re outbreeding our ability to lower our footprint. What is the point of everyone lowering their footprint by 10% if we have 15% more people by the time we reach that?
Every reputable population growth estimate says we reach the peak world population in 70 years at ~10 billion people. We’re close to the top and after that it shrinks. Overpopulation is not a significant problem compared to climate change as long as we stop using fossil fuels. Green energy is looking like it’s starting to win thanks to… Mostly China making green power cheap… And I guess Trump making fossil fuels unaffordable…
Every reputable population growth estimate says we reach the peak world population in 70 years at ~10 billion people. We’re close to the top and after that it shrinks. Overpopulation is not a significant problem compared to climate
All wishful thinking. If you look at the actual numbers there’s no sign of a slowdown. But I guess fucking will go out of style in the coming years, right?
Overpopulation is not a significant problem compared to climate change as long as we stop using fossil fuels.
Overpopulation is the cause of global warming. There are now 4 times as many people as a hundred years ago. Do you really believe that climate change would have been a problem if our population was a quarter of what it is now?
Of course it would be! Fossil fuels are cheap and easy to extract. Energy consumption is directly correlated to quality of life. You think if there were fewer people they would just say “no thanks, we’ve had enough material wealth, just leave the cheap and easy energy in the ground, we’re good”
What in our history makes you think our resource usage is related to population? You said it yourself that most of the world is living in poverty and needs to increase their resource consumption to get to a decent quality of life. That’s clearly one of the things that would have happened with fewer people. The other would be whatever mega yachts would be if the rich were 4x richer… Maybe space yachts…
This anti-natalism thing you’ve got going is really rotting your mind.
Except that’s not true at all “overpopulation” isn’t a major problem its resource extraction, waste, terrible distribution on and on boiling down to capitalism.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t lower our per-capita ecological footprint, we absolutely should, but that’s not sustainable.
Sure, there are a lot of quick wins to be had, especially in wasteful countries like the US, but the more you lower your footprint the harder it gets to reduce it even more. It will never be zero.
The way it looks now we’re outbreeding our ability to lower our footprint. What is the point of everyone lowering their footprint by 10% if we have 15% more people by the time we reach that?
Every reputable population growth estimate says we reach the peak world population in 70 years at ~10 billion people. We’re close to the top and after that it shrinks. Overpopulation is not a significant problem compared to climate change as long as we stop using fossil fuels. Green energy is looking like it’s starting to win thanks to… Mostly China making green power cheap… And I guess Trump making fossil fuels unaffordable…
All wishful thinking. If you look at the actual numbers there’s no sign of a slowdown. But I guess fucking will go out of style in the coming years, right?
Overpopulation is the cause of global warming. There are now 4 times as many people as a hundred years ago. Do you really believe that climate change would have been a problem if our population was a quarter of what it is now?
Of course it would be! Fossil fuels are cheap and easy to extract. Energy consumption is directly correlated to quality of life. You think if there were fewer people they would just say “no thanks, we’ve had enough material wealth, just leave the cheap and easy energy in the ground, we’re good”
What in our history makes you think our resource usage is related to population? You said it yourself that most of the world is living in poverty and needs to increase their resource consumption to get to a decent quality of life. That’s clearly one of the things that would have happened with fewer people. The other would be whatever mega yachts would be if the rich were 4x richer… Maybe space yachts…
This anti-natalism thing you’ve got going is really rotting your mind.