5 ms·
There's so much to object to about the idea that Earth is overpopulated. Then you get it and it hits you like a ton of bricks. The signs are everywhere and coul
by spodek 5y ago
There's so much to object to about the idea that Earth is overpopulated. Then you get it and it hits you like a ton of bricks. The signs are everywhere and couldn't be more clear. But we're addicted to growth and efficiency, ignoring our limits, and our addiction blinds us to seeing what's plainly all around.
- raldi 5y agoWhen you prevent housing from being constructed in cities, the families that would've lived there don't disappear; they sprawl elsewhere and — as confirmed by statistics — go on to have more children than they otherwise would've.
- pitaj 5y agoThe primary objection is that "overpopulation" is badly defined when it comes to humanity.
- eplanit 5y agoIt's a taboo topic because of people's fears and anxieties that it triggers. A (cold) rational perspective sees that many (if not most) challenges facing society share a root cause of there being simply too many people.
- _-david-_ 5y agoEarth is not overpopulated. The problem is that certain places have too much population density. If everyone spread out across the world there wouldn't be any of these issues. For a variety of reason people can't or won't spread out.
- shipman05 5y agoSpreading out would be the worst case scenario for the environment. (And I'm afraid we might see it due to easy remote work) A single apartment building uses far fewer resources per person than the equivalent number of people would if they all had 10 acre lots in the countryside. The habitat destruction alone would be an ecological disaster.
- bittercynic 5y agoIt's not that there isn't space for all the humans, but that we are very industrious and consume an impressive level of resources. I think it is reasonable to be concerned when a significant fraction of the planet's energy budget is diverted by a single species.
- pacifist 5y ago> Earth is not overpopulated Beg to differ. Exhibit A: climate change. Your solution would not ameliorate climate change. In fact it would likely exacerbate it. We need as much of the land as possible to be rewilded(left alone to maximize CO2 absorption and heal the planet). And stop having babies. Do you really want to bring a child into the nightmare we are barreling towards?
- exporectomy 5y agoPlants are carbon neutral, not carbon sinks. They don't put the fossil fuels back into the ground because they decompose before they're buried.
- Ericson2314 5y agoWow, this is so exactly wrong and dangerously so. Any land humans use at above hunter-gatherer impact is highly damaged. The goal is always thus to use as little land as possible.
- slothtrop 5y agoHere's one definition I like: if not everyone can live comfortably and happily, even with infrastructure densification using current tech, without pushing the environment over carrying capacity then we're overpopulated. Could everyone in the world own property without pushing the environment to the brink? Probably not.
- Ericson2314 5y agoEven if the population went down dramatically, we should should still stay dense. Density is good. Mutual defense did jump-start density before, let's hope something other than violence can cause it this time. Car Suburbia is damaging and wasteful no matter the population size.
- imtringued 5y agoCalculate a standard of living index for every square mile on earth. Then add a slider that only shows you all areas greater than the chosen standard of living. When you crank it all the way up to California living standards the earth does look overpopulated. Of course when all we want is the mere existence of humans then there can be as many additional humans as rats on the planet and they'll get to live the same quality of life.