5 ms·

Respectfully, I'd argue we are already overpopulated. The contraction will take a while to really take hold. Eventually we will no longer be overpopulated. I ju

Respectfully, I'd argue we are already overpopulated. The contraction will take a while to really take hold. Eventually we will no longer be overpopulated. I just don't think the Earth can sustainably support more than 2 billion people. But it will take quite a long time for us to fall that far and it will come with other issues. Additionally, it will take far longer for the oceans and atmosphere to recover but it eventually will. I also don't understand how we think we'd do better on Mars than on Earth. We have near infinite resources and advantages here and we trashed it. We have none of those on Mars.

mschuster91 6y ago
> I just don't think the Earth can sustainably support more than 2 billion people. Of course Earth can sustainably support way more people than that. The problem is waste. The US alone loses 30-40% of the food it produces, worldwide it's something to ~1/3rd.
- bserge 6y ago
  Centralized food and energy production (and other things tbh, but these two stand out) is certainly a lot cheaper, but it's obvious it was not the right move. If everyone had to maintain their local food/energy production at the county, neighbourhood or even household level, there would be much less waste and more responsibility (something a lot of people need). Fewer out of season products means less waste and pollution, as well.
- snarf21 6y ago
  I think we've shown what a greedy species we are. I don't know what we can expect people to live a smaller life and consume less voluntarily. In my opinion, given our track record, that is why I suggested a lower total as a max. Maybe one day we'll be able to create energy and food locally that is carbon neutral and then we could handle more population but that doesn't seem possible now or anytime soon.
grecy 6y ago
> I also don't understand how we think we'd do better on Mars than on Earth. We have near infinite resources and advantages here and we trashed it. We have none of those on Mars. Elon's goal isn't to do better on Mars. It's to have Mars as a backup of humans in case something happens to Earth (for example - big meteor). As we sit now if we lose Earth, humans are finished. If we had a colony on Mars, at least humans as a species would continue.

mschuster91 6y ago

> I just don't think the Earth can sustainably support more than 2 billion people. Of course Earth can sustainably support way more people than that. The problem is waste. The US alone loses 30-40% of the food it produces, worldwide it's something to ~1/3rd.

bserge 6y ago
Centralized food and energy production (and other things tbh, but these two stand out) is certainly a lot cheaper, but it's obvious it was not the right move. If everyone had to maintain their local food/energy production at the county, neighbourhood or even household level, there would be much less waste and more responsibility (something a lot of people need). Fewer out of season products means less waste and pollution, as well.
snarf21 6y ago
I think we've shown what a greedy species we are. I don't know what we can expect people to live a smaller life and consume less voluntarily. In my opinion, given our track record, that is why I suggested a lower total as a max. Maybe one day we'll be able to create energy and food locally that is carbon neutral and then we could handle more population but that doesn't seem possible now or anytime soon.

grecy 6y ago

> I also don't understand how we think we'd do better on Mars than on Earth. We have near infinite resources and advantages here and we trashed it. We have none of those on Mars. Elon's goal isn't to do better on Mars. It's to have Mars as a backup of humans in case something happens to Earth (for example - big meteor). As we sit now if we lose Earth, humans are finished. If we had a colony on Mars, at least humans as a species would continue.