5 ms·

I would tend to agree. Cities breed lots of problems. Social, economic, environmental, every kind you can imagine. And it creates very very small communities ou

I would tend to agree. Cities breed lots of problems. Social, economic, environmental, every kind you can imagine. And it creates very very small communities outside those cities which comes with its own problems too (think small town sheriff's tyranny type stuff - yes there's racial profiling etc in big cities as well, didn't say it was a unique problem). Bigger numbers do have an advantage but there is definitely a number that is too large. I would advocate for lots of intermediate size cities but that doesn't seem to be what anyone in power wants. Also, are you advocating for Thanos like mercy here? ;)

giantg2 5y ago
Not just that the settlement size is not right, but that the planet can only support so many people. Sure, they estimate it can support up to 11 billion. But that assumes increases in technology and commercial agricultural as well as consumer changes (like little meat). This also doesn't take into account it being sustainable or not. We need a shrinking population and less consumerism. We are not currently sustainable (and unlikely to become so anytime soon).
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  > the planet can only support so many people I think this is a big, and very sad misunderstanding. Back in humanity's hunter gatherer days, we truly lived off what the planet spontaneously produces, and that sustained world population of something like 50 million people. The we invented farming, and all sorts of technology, and now we're 7000 million. So how do those 6950 extra millions survive? I think the best way to think of it is that they (we) produce their (our) own food! Each mouth to feed also comes with two hands to produce food. The planet doesn't have to do the work. We make our own food.
  - shmageggy 5y ago
    This is wrong. By this logic the planet could support infinite people, which is clearly impossible. > The planet doesn't have to do the work. We make our own food. We don't just conjure food from the ether, it requires space and resources, both of which are finite. We're already using half of the world's habitable land for farming, and we need to retain some wild spaces to perform all of the ecological functions that farmland can't. There's a limited amount of fresh water, etc. And food isn't the only bottleneck. If the current population all lived a modern western lifestyle, we'd be emitting an even more unsustainable amount of carbon. The planet is a closed, finite system, so by definition there must be some upper limit to what it can support.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    So why do the experts estimate the planet can support between 8 and 11 billion people? 2 hands to produce it? No. Modern agriculture relies on machines for most things. The high yield monocrop pattern is how we feed so many already. I firmly believe that increasing people will decrease suitability.
TheGigaChad 5y ago
I would advocate for you to hang yourself.

giantg2 5y ago

Not just that the settlement size is not right, but that the planet can only support so many people. Sure, they estimate it can support up to 11 billion. But that assumes increases in technology and commercial agricultural as well as consumer changes (like little meat). This also doesn't take into account it being sustainable or not. We need a shrinking population and less consumerism. We are not currently sustainable (and unlikely to become so anytime soon).

BurningFrog 5y ago
> the planet can only support so many people I think this is a big, and very sad misunderstanding. Back in humanity's hunter gatherer days, we truly lived off what the planet spontaneously produces, and that sustained world population of something like 50 million people. The we invented farming, and all sorts of technology, and now we're 7000 million. So how do those 6950 extra millions survive? I think the best way to think of it is that they (we) produce their (our) own food! Each mouth to feed also comes with two hands to produce food. The planet doesn't have to do the work. We make our own food.
- shmageggy 5y ago
  This is wrong. By this logic the planet could support infinite people, which is clearly impossible. > The planet doesn't have to do the work. We make our own food. We don't just conjure food from the ether, it requires space and resources, both of which are finite. We're already using half of the world's habitable land for farming, and we need to retain some wild spaces to perform all of the ecological functions that farmland can't. There's a limited amount of fresh water, etc. And food isn't the only bottleneck. If the current population all lived a modern western lifestyle, we'd be emitting an even more unsustainable amount of carbon. The planet is a closed, finite system, so by definition there must be some upper limit to what it can support.
- giantg2 5y ago
  So why do the experts estimate the planet can support between 8 and 11 billion people? 2 hands to produce it? No. Modern agriculture relies on machines for most things. The high yield monocrop pattern is how we feed so many already. I firmly believe that increasing people will decrease suitability.

TheGigaChad 5y ago

I would advocate for you to hang yourself.