4 ms·

We could handle 10 billion if we consumed as people consumed in 1901, but not at the rate middle class people consume in even middle of the road developed count

by mc32 5y ago

We could handle 10 billion if we consumed as people consumed in 1901, but not at the rate middle class people consume in even middle of the road developed countries. Japan, Italy and the US are "reducing the people" naturally. We're there already. Yes our pop happens to be "growing" but that's due to others exporting their excess to us.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
throwaway894345 5y ago
> We could handle 10 billion if we consumed as people consumed in 1901, but not at the rate middle class people consume in even middle of the road developed countries. How do you figure? Certainly we can't afford to keep emitting at the rate we're emitting, but if we transition to entirely clean energy and use our existing farmland more efficiently (rather than encroaching on important ecosystems) then I'm not sure what the remaining bottlenecks are. Lumber?
- goatlover 5y ago
  Yes, We will probably figure out fusion and AGI within a century along with advanced molecular nanotech. So yes, if civilization can make it through the 21st, we should be able to transition to a highly efficient, clean civilization, while restoring part of the biosphere.
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
It doesn't matter what the US/Japan/Europe are doing population wise. The big issue with the future is that China and India was to be first world countries with first world luxuries. India is currently 1.3 billion people and still growing 1-2% per year. China is currently 1.4 billion people. Still growing .3% per year (US is .4%) Dismissing first world population growth as "just being overflow" / immigration ignores the fact that people that immigrate to the US will quickly start consuming resources like an American. Population growth doesn't matter that much. What really matters is the resource consumption rates of the population. The environmental future is basically a conflict between India and China aspiring to Western resource consumption rates and luxury, and us praying they figure out how to do it sustainably. Otherwise: WAR.

by mc32 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

throwaway894345 5y ago

> We could handle 10 billion if we consumed as people consumed in 1901, but not at the rate middle class people consume in even middle of the road developed countries. How do you figure? Certainly we can't afford to keep emitting at the rate we're emitting, but if we transition to entirely clean energy and use our existing farmland more efficiently (rather than encroaching on important ecosystems) then I'm not sure what the remaining bottlenecks are. Lumber?

goatlover 5y ago
Yes, We will probably figure out fusion and AGI within a century along with advanced molecular nanotech. So yes, if civilization can make it through the 21st, we should be able to transition to a highly efficient, clean civilization, while restoring part of the biosphere.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

It doesn't matter what the US/Japan/Europe are doing population wise. The big issue with the future is that China and India was to be first world countries with first world luxuries. India is currently 1.3 billion people and still growing 1-2% per year. China is currently 1.4 billion people. Still growing .3% per year (US is .4%) Dismissing first world population growth as "just being overflow" / immigration ignores the fact that people that immigrate to the US will quickly start consuming resources like an American. Population growth doesn't matter that much. What really matters is the resource consumption rates of the population. The environmental future is basically a conflict between India and China aspiring to Western resource consumption rates and luxury, and us praying they figure out how to do it sustainably. Otherwise: WAR.