5 ms·

and if you really want to preserve nature, then you need do something about our growing population. more people need more space to live, it's that simple.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
All countries except Africa and some in the Middle East have fertility rates below replacement rate.
- thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
  but the population in the US and the world as a whole is still growing. "World population projected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100" https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world...
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    True, due to population momentum. It’s important to differentiate when discussing policy.
wpasc 7y ago
all 7b of us could live in new zealand with the housing density of manhattan
Robotbeat 7y ago
Not at all "that simple." The population growth (in terms of birthrate) has already flatlined in the US and will soon do so globally. People use up remarkably little space to actually live. In dense cities, multiple stories mean you can fit 3-10 times as many people as in single stories in the same area. But even with single stories, not much land is used. What IS important is area used for agriculture. It's vastly more than land used for roads and houses and other buildings. Cut down on that (without sacrificing amount of food produced--possible using technology and policy together) and footprint on nature is reduced. In fact, less land is now used for agriculture than was used in the late 1940s, even though population has more than doubled: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2012/march/data-feature-how-is-land-used/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2012/march/data-feature... That is due to vastly higher yields. We can go further and eliminate much farmland altogether by growing most of our calories from single-celled organisms. Given the processed food of the current industrial food system, the end-quality would be unchanged for the most part and may even improve. Even if not used for human consumption, it can displace animal feed (and already is used to some extent). Meat substitutes can also help.
- deusofnull 7y ago
  Lowering meat consumption writ large, even just more people only having one meat meal a day, would be huge too. Meat production is super resource intensive. Have to grow grain for them to eat, water that grain, transport it, provide water for the livestock, etc. > According to calculations of the United Nations Environment Programme, the calories that are lost by feeding cereals to animals, instead of using them directly as human food, could theoretically feed an extra 3.5 billion people. > Feed conversion rates from plant-based calories into animal-based calories vary; in the ideal case it takes two kilograms of grain to produce one kilo of chicken, four kilos for one kilogram of pork and seven kilos for one kilogram of beef. - Global Agriculture[1] Your point re: human living space density in cities is totally spot on. Urbanism is much more efficient than suburban sprawl. Rigorous public transit makes having a car optional / disadvantageous if you live in a city. It's no wonder the automobile industry has always sought to stifle transit. Look at the successes of the Houston light rail system METRORail. Opened in 2004 and has cut back traffic and lead to high-density apartments, shops, and offices near stations. All that is evidence of why population growth isn't a real root issue. It could be problematic, depending on what other systems are at play to mitigate increasing resource needs of people. Even so, our current food production is enough to feed the projected 2050 population of 9.7 billion[2]. [1]https://www.globalagriculture.org/report-topics/meat-and-animal-feed.html https://www.globalagriculture.org/report-topics/meat-and-ani... [2]https://www.elementascience.org/article/10.1525/elementa.310/ https://www.elementascience.org/article/10.1525/elementa.310...

toomuchtodo 7y ago

All countries except Africa and some in the Middle East have fertility rates below replacement rate.

thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
but the population in the US and the world as a whole is still growing. "World population projected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100" https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world...
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  True, due to population momentum. It’s important to differentiate when discussing policy.

wpasc 7y ago

all 7b of us could live in new zealand with the housing density of manhattan

Robotbeat 7y ago

Not at all "that simple." The population growth (in terms of birthrate) has already flatlined in the US and will soon do so globally. People use up remarkably little space to actually live. In dense cities, multiple stories mean you can fit 3-10 times as many people as in single stories in the same area. But even with single stories, not much land is used. What IS important is area used for agriculture. It's vastly more than land used for roads and houses and other buildings. Cut down on that (without sacrificing amount of food produced--possible using technology and policy together) and footprint on nature is reduced. In fact, less land is now used for agriculture than was used in the late 1940s, even though population has more than doubled: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2012/march/data-feature-how-is-land-used/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2012/march/data-feature... That is due to vastly higher yields. We can go further and eliminate much farmland altogether by growing most of our calories from single-celled organisms. Given the processed food of the current industrial food system, the end-quality would be unchanged for the most part and may even improve. Even if not used for human consumption, it can displace animal feed (and already is used to some extent). Meat substitutes can also help.

deusofnull 7y ago
Lowering meat consumption writ large, even just more people only having one meat meal a day, would be huge too. Meat production is super resource intensive. Have to grow grain for them to eat, water that grain, transport it, provide water for the livestock, etc. > According to calculations of the United Nations Environment Programme, the calories that are lost by feeding cereals to animals, instead of using them directly as human food, could theoretically feed an extra 3.5 billion people. > Feed conversion rates from plant-based calories into animal-based calories vary; in the ideal case it takes two kilograms of grain to produce one kilo of chicken, four kilos for one kilogram of pork and seven kilos for one kilogram of beef. - Global Agriculture[1] Your point re: human living space density in cities is totally spot on. Urbanism is much more efficient than suburban sprawl. Rigorous public transit makes having a car optional / disadvantageous if you live in a city. It's no wonder the automobile industry has always sought to stifle transit. Look at the successes of the Houston light rail system METRORail. Opened in 2004 and has cut back traffic and lead to high-density apartments, shops, and offices near stations. All that is evidence of why population growth isn't a real root issue. It could be problematic, depending on what other systems are at play to mitigate increasing resource needs of people. Even so, our current food production is enough to feed the projected 2050 population of 9.7 billion[2]. [1]https://www.globalagriculture.org/report-topics/meat-and-animal-feed.html https://www.globalagriculture.org/report-topics/meat-and-ani... [2]https://www.elementascience.org/article/10.1525/elementa.310/ https://www.elementascience.org/article/10.1525/elementa.310...