• ChrisLicht@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    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
      4
      ·
      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.

    • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      In the end, that’s more or less the same thing. But the question is, do we need more people? It’s also easier to be sustainable if we require less.

    • 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.