Bewaretheicespiders t1_j6xjwi5 wrote
Reply to comment by Lex-117 in Are cultural changes more important than technological ones to solve environmental and capitalism issues? by G-Funk_with_2Bass
>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
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
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
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
>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
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments