• PlasmaDistortion@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • ChrisLicht@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        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.

      • Skyline969@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        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.