this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
386 points (98.2% liked)

World News

39032 readers
2483 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago (3 children)

The problem is the word “significant”

We can all agree the population can’t continue to grow. We can also agree it probably needs to shrink, especially by the time this starts making a difference.

However, if it shrinks too rapidly, there’s a lot of potential disruption of society and economy. If it continues to shrink, it could be a serious problem for all of humanity.

We should make changes now to encourage more people to have kids. The goal should be a slow, controlled decrease, to level off, without major disruption

Personally, I like 6B as a good place to plateau. We’re probably already beyond the planet’s carrying capacity so need to be less than today. However a lot of the advancements in society (technology, space, medicine, science, innovation) really require a fairly large population. Establishing a number ought to be someone’s thesis, but in the meantime: 6B

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Maybe society needs to be disrupted. There is lots of room for improvements

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Maybe, but I think of disruption sort of like mutation. We all like to think it creates superhuman but most same actually negative , and reality is we get more improvements with continuous increments

Mutation is random and if as people we cant do better than random change we deserve the hardships it brings.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

The math says that the planet could sustainablely support 10B humans and the supporting ecosystems. Just not with the current system in place.

[–] 00x0xx@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

sonally, I like 6B as a good place to plateau. We’re probably already beyond the planet’s carrying capacity so nee

With the current food growing technologies, we can handle 10 billion comfortable well. We will obviously not reach that number anytime soon. But we are on track to shrinking rapidly in many nations. That will destroy these nations.

[–] elshandra@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think that there are a lot of 8 billion people who would disagree with comfortably well. That number needs to be closer to two, to be sustainable with earth's resources. At least that's my understanding, not disappointed if wrong.

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The problem is not the resources, it's the distribution. No political will to end global poverty, no profit in feeding the hungry.

[–] elshandra@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Oh absolutely, people gonna keep being people. The truth seems to be that we don't really know, but it's likely somewhere between 4 and 16 from the little bit of reading up I just did.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I tend to most notice reports of overfishing. Food from land sources is almost entirely farmed but we still get a lot of seafood from wild sources plus don’t have aquaculture anywhere near as advanced as agriculture: there’s not much we can do. Loss of a marine food source is a big deal, and we keep doing that with more species. One solution is fewer people

A lot of the higher estimates assume we can overcome limitations like this with better management of resources, but that is against human nature and our current incentives. It’s not going to happen, even if lives depend on it

[–] elshandra@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Let's not forget water.. And eventually, oxygen.. But keep buying/selling those trinkets people, for the economy.

And well, how much of these resource estimates leave enough for other life too, or does all other life just exist to feed us?..

[–] 31337@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I doubt that. Current conventional food production is highly fossil fuel dependant (everything from fertilizer to processing to transport). Earth's ariable land and top soil is decreasing quickly. Ecosystems are collapsing from the effects of agriculture and climate change. Most "advances" require more inputs and energy, which means more fossil fuel use, further accelerating resource degredation and climate change. I forget the statistic, but humans already control a significant proportion of Earth's biomass. This chart from https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/17788/how-much-of-earths-biomass-is-affected-by-humans/ might be what I was thinking of:

[–] 00x0xx@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

About 30-40% of food is wasted in the US, in India its 22%, in China 27%. These are the largest nations in the world. The reality is that we can build more efficient infrastructures that can drastically cut down on this. But we don't need to yet, because it's not cost efficient. That's how much 'free' resources we have produced based on current technologies.