3 ms·
> So the the discussion can only be what the correct number is, isn't it? And it could well be that the number is lower than the current population. Ok, I agre
by arvinsim 7y ago
> So the the discussion can only be what the correct number is, isn't it? And it could well be that the number is lower than the current population.
Ok, I agree that this is still up for discussion.
> For our current technology, population is way too high.
Uhh, you just said that is up for debate.
- chopin 7y ago>Uhh, you just said that is up for debate. Back of the napkin: following Wikipedia world energy consumption is roughly 1/10,000 of the yearly radiation input by the sun. This means about 450,000 km² of area for harvesting if we assume roughly 10% efficiency. This larger than the size of Germany. I don't think this is realistic in the short term. For keeping population only stable at current levels by providing everyone the lifestyle let's say of Europe we would need much more energy than that. For our current technology population is too high in my opinion. I cannot provide a solution but if we strive for providing everyone Europe's life style, nature will show us another way of reducing population, I fear.