4 ms·

It is such an unpopular opinion but this is the answer. Humans are selfish. The earth can't sustain 8B+ people. Maybe 2B max with some technological advances fo

It is such an unpopular opinion but this is the answer. Humans are selfish. The earth can't sustain 8B+ people. Maybe 2B max with some technological advances for cleaner cars and other renewables.

rocknor 6y ago
It is rightfully unpopular, because it's not based on facts. The earth could easily sustain 8B+ people if certain countries do not over-consume as they are currently. But you are right, people are selfish, especially these over-consumers.
- kazinator 6y ago
  I think it's better for 2B billion to enjoy life, than for 20B to live under some miserable constraints.
  - rocknor 6y ago
    Pretty stupid thing to say. UN predicts 11B humans at peak. Certain new studies predict 9.7B. Global average birth rate is already close to replacement levels. The earth population that can enjoy life is not fixed at 2B, that's very myopic thinking. We should fund science & tech so that it's possible for 11B people to enjoy life without damaging the planet, instead of blaming the "others" based on racist anti-science attitudes and deliberately keeping them poor by punishing them economically. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzBAxcJDSsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzBAxcJDSsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348 http://www.overpopulation.world/ http://www.overpopulation.world/ https://overpopulationisamyth.com/ https://overpopulationisamyth.com/ https://www.gapminder.org/ https://www.gapminder.org/
Tepix 6y ago
It's a very arrogant comment indeed. A human's permitted CO2 output should not depend on how much she/he contributes to science or even the GDP. Anyway, earth could very well sustain even 20 billion people according to Martin Rees (in "On the Future"). It does require that we really reduce our resource usage, however. Going vegan, using virtual reality instead of travelling etc. Luckily the trends seem to indicate we won't reach more than 11 billion (which is still way too much at today's resource usage) before the numbers go down.
- kazinator 6y ago
  > Going vegan, using virtual reality instead of travelling etc. Heck, a trillion or more, if we all agree to be suspended in tanks and fed by tubes!

It is such an unpopular opinion but this is the answer. Humans are selfish. The earth can't sustain 8B+ people. Maybe 2B max with some technological advances for cleaner cars and other renewables.

rocknor 6y ago

It is rightfully unpopular, because it's not based on facts. The earth could easily sustain 8B+ people if certain countries do not over-consume as they are currently. But you are right, people are selfish, especially these over-consumers.

kazinator 6y ago
I think it's better for 2B billion to enjoy life, than for 20B to live under some miserable constraints.
- rocknor 6y ago
  Pretty stupid thing to say. UN predicts 11B humans at peak. Certain new studies predict 9.7B. Global average birth rate is already close to replacement levels. The earth population that can enjoy life is not fixed at 2B, that's very myopic thinking. We should fund science & tech so that it's possible for 11B people to enjoy life without damaging the planet, instead of blaming the "others" based on racist anti-science attitudes and deliberately keeping them poor by punishing them economically. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzBAxcJDSsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzBAxcJDSsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348 http://www.overpopulation.world/ http://www.overpopulation.world/ https://overpopulationisamyth.com/ https://overpopulationisamyth.com/ https://www.gapminder.org/ https://www.gapminder.org/

Tepix 6y ago

It's a very arrogant comment indeed. A human's permitted CO2 output should not depend on how much she/he contributes to science or even the GDP. Anyway, earth could very well sustain even 20 billion people according to Martin Rees (in "On the Future"). It does require that we really reduce our resource usage, however. Going vegan, using virtual reality instead of travelling etc. Luckily the trends seem to indicate we won't reach more than 11 billion (which is still way too much at today's resource usage) before the numbers go down.

kazinator 6y ago
> Going vegan, using virtual reality instead of travelling etc. Heck, a trillion or more, if we all agree to be suspended in tanks and fed by tubes!