4 ms·

How much is too much? Not everybody prioritizes health, enjoyment, etc. in the same way. It's easy to fall into the trap of assuming that our personal values ar

How much is too much? Not everybody prioritizes health, enjoyment, etc. in the same way. It's easy to fall into the trap of assuming that our personal values are shared by all. If you were simply expressing your opinion, that's perfectly fine. I only wrote this because it appeared to me as through you were attempting to portray what you said as an objective fact -- which it is not. :)

cmarschner 10y ago
An easy measure would be: if all people on the planet would consume resources just like the people in a particular country, the number of planets needed to feed and entertain them should still be less than one. By that measure, I think Europe is somewhere between 2 and 3 and the US is beyond 4.
- pitay 10y ago
  That measure doesn't deal with over population, which is a huge thing, and more likely to run out of control than consumption per person in a country. Although individual consumption is important as well. For instance New Delhi is far more polluted than any US city, although energy consumption per capita may be 16 times more in the US than India. In my opinion a measure like energy or resource use per square kilometer of land is a much better measure. Although it has its problems as well, such as land quality varying greatly between different areas, which would change the number of people an area of land could support in a sustainable way. Sources: Population and energy usage per country http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/population_energy http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/population_energy . This uses Population Reference Bureau; 2012 World Population Data Sheet for population information and uses U.S. Energy Information Administration 2012 for energy use information. This is on the bottom of the page linked. For the Pollution index, it is Pollution Index 2016 Mid Year http://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankings.jsp http://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankings.jsp . Disclaimer: I am not an expert in the slightest.
- trav4225 10y ago
  I wonder if those estimates attempt to account for supply and demand...

cmarschner 10y ago

An easy measure would be: if all people on the planet would consume resources just like the people in a particular country, the number of planets needed to feed and entertain them should still be less than one. By that measure, I think Europe is somewhere between 2 and 3 and the US is beyond 4.

pitay 10y ago
That measure doesn't deal with over population, which is a huge thing, and more likely to run out of control than consumption per person in a country. Although individual consumption is important as well. For instance New Delhi is far more polluted than any US city, although energy consumption per capita may be 16 times more in the US than India. In my opinion a measure like energy or resource use per square kilometer of land is a much better measure. Although it has its problems as well, such as land quality varying greatly between different areas, which would change the number of people an area of land could support in a sustainable way. Sources: Population and energy usage per country http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/population_energy http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/population_energy . This uses Population Reference Bureau; 2012 World Population Data Sheet for population information and uses U.S. Energy Information Administration 2012 for energy use information. This is on the bottom of the page linked. For the Pollution index, it is Pollution Index 2016 Mid Year http://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankings.jsp http://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankings.jsp . Disclaimer: I am not an expert in the slightest.
trav4225 10y ago
I wonder if those estimates attempt to account for supply and demand...