Lex-117 t1_j6wsztd wrote on February 2, 2023 at 1:25 PM

Since nobody has mentioned: cultural change is what’s going to save our asses (if we‘d only would change) Currently 80% of the arable land are used for livestock feeding, while meat and dairy products account for an estimated 1/3 of the proteins and not even 20% of the calories.

We better stop eating that shit, means reduce it by 70%. Than we have space to feed more than 10 billion people and can reforestate, which captures more water and carbon than the former farm land.

But guess what? It’s not happening because all people are cowards

Bewaretheicespiders t1_j6xjwi5 wrote on February 2, 2023 at 4:34 PM

>Than we have space to feed more than 10 billion people

And then what? What are you gonna cut for the next 10 billion? The next 50 billion?

Population growth is not sustainable. There is no level on consumption low enough to support infinite people.

pickingnamesishard69 t1_j6y35tr wrote on February 2, 2023 at 6:32 PM

looks like we'll naturally level out at 10 billion, growth is already slowing.
overpopulation is not as big an issue as we feel it is. overconsumption is.

Bewaretheicespiders t1_j6y4ul5 wrote on February 2, 2023 at 6:43 PM

For the current population to be environmentally sustainable, everyone should live at most like the people of Niger.

https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/countryTrends?cn=158&type=BCpc,EFCpc

You want worse than Niger?

pickingnamesishard69 t1_j71cqsj wrote on February 3, 2023 at 10:59 AM

nice strawman you have there.
as if walkable cities with solid public transport, green electricity, efficient heating, localized food production without wasteful feed import from burned down rainforest would be equal to go back living in caves.
I want better for everyone in a sustainable way.

Bewaretheicespiders t1_j7242bn wrote on February 3, 2023 at 3:05 PM

>walkable cities with solid public transport, green electricity, efficient heating, localized food production without wasteful feed import from burned down rainforest

Would still be too much ecological footprint for 8 billion people, much less 10.

pickingnamesishard69 t1_j72mhmm wrote on February 3, 2023 at 5:04 PM

nah, it would work out. issue is we're not really trying to get there fast enough.

whether it really would work out or not, it is still the better option than the alternative:
nuking all of the US, Canada, Europe and Russia.