3 ms·
“There is only one overall solution, and that is to reduce the scale of the human enterprise,” he said. “Population growth and increasing consumption among the
by darod 9y ago
“There is only one overall solution, and that is to reduce the scale of the human enterprise,” he said. “Population growth and increasing consumption among the rich is driving it.”
- acjohnson55 9y agoIt's conceivable we can reduce the global impact of humanity while keeping human population stable. We could consolidate people into higher density settlements, and if we master energy production with much more manageable externalities, perhaps we can make agriculture much less land intensive, with things like vertical farming. As resource hungry as wealthy humans are, at the very least, we appear to naturally form populations that don't grow. So that gives me some hope for the future.
- pyre 9y agoI remember reading a statistic that if all people in the US lived at the population density of Manhattan, then the entire US population would fit within the state of Rhode Island. Think about what kind of impact that would have on reducing the impact on the rest of the continental US. Edit: Calculating that out: 321,400,000 people (pop. of the US) ÷ 66,940 people per mi² (pop. density of Manhattan) ------------- ~4,801.31 mi² The area of Rhode Island is 1,212 mi². Looks like it might be more accurate to say Connecticut (5,543 mi²)
- wavefunction 9y agoI would much prefer to live in a low-tech low-density rural society than live in a Rhode Island-sized Manhattan. Probably somewhere in between those extremes is more prudent.
- acjohnson55 9y agoBut even without agriculture, things like highways can be really disruptive.
- strictnein 9y agoIn terms of area of impact, farms impact far more land than cities and suburbs do. The farms would all still be there.
- acjohnson55 9y agoYeah, but as mentioned, it's conceivable we could consolidate farms too. We only lack the energy to pull it off.