6 ms·

This illustrates why it's a terrible shame that the overpopulation topic has effectively been silenced and demonized in science conservationism and environmenta

This illustrates why it's a terrible shame that the overpopulation topic has effectively been silenced and demonized in science conservationism and environmentalism. I frequently get people becoming wildly irrational and upset at me when I suggest that the current population is not supported by the earth sustainably, let alone a much larger one. They'll angrily insist that the earth's "carrying capacity" is 20, 50, 100 billion people! Or that countries should be looking to increase their populations, or that natural population stability and decline is a terrible thing. As though we have not _already_ caused (and are continuing to cause) a great extinction event almost entirely before any significant effects from greenhouse gas emissions have made an impact. Habitat destruction, chemical pollution, mining, mineral and fossil fuel depletion, water depletion and contamination, farming practices and monocultures, human interference, etc., are all just horrific, are responsible for massive destruction and extinction of the environment, and aren't all suddenly going to get magic'ed away the instant we somehow get the GHG pollution thing under control (if we ever do). The funny thing about that is, if our population was a very healthy, say, 5% of its current level, greenhouse gas emissions would be practically a non-issue too. The problem would literally be solved. Gradually moving toward cleaner and more renewable sources of course should and would happen, but while that was responsibly and efficiently changing, there would be no imminent climate catastrophe occurring. EDIT: It's happening again.

toqy 5y ago
> I frequently get people becoming wildly irrational and upset at me when I suggest that the current population is not supported by the earth sustainably Arguing about how many people the earth can sustain is pointless without defining what kind of life you expect people to be living. How many billions can capitalism + western rates of consumption sustain and for how long vs a simpler way of life. > aren't all suddenly going to get magic'ed away and neither are all the people deemed excess by your world view, which is probably the part people get riled up about.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > Arguing about how many people the earth can sustain is pointless without defining what kind of life you expect people to be living. How many billions can capitalism + western rates of consumption sustain and for how long vs a simpler way of life. Not really, 10 billion "simpler way of life" people have huge catastrophic footprints as well. Farming being a major one. But the point was not to come to a precise figure and metrics, it's an unhinged kneejerk reaction to any suggestion that the population is not sustainable. Which it is not. > and neither are all the people deemed excess by your world view, This false ad hominem suggests you are one of the people my original post refers to. _My_ world view deems no person "excess". It acknowledges a simple reality that our population is not sustainable and reducing it or limiting growth is critically important for the environment and makes all other environmental efforts simpler or less severe. > which is probably the part people get riled up about. No, it's not. They get unhinged about the idea that population is a serious environmental problem at its current levels let alone increased levels. The (baseless and unfounded) claims they make being that it's not a problem "because earth's carrying capacity is 50 billion people" or other absurd statements along those lines.
  - dwaltrip 5y ago
    They probably get upset as they assume you are implying some moral judgment against having kids. Most people want kids, just like those before us for untold hundreds of thousands of years.
    - iostream23 5y ago
      There’s a difference between one kid, two kids, three kids, and that guy who had 150 kids or somesuch. There isn’t an infinite carrying capacity to any planet, nor is it reasonable to have excess of a singular species for it is at the expense of others. Some may have hurt feelings if you explain that more than 2 kids increases the population, but then “go forth and multiply” is probably not currently sound guidance, given what we now know, vs what we knew, say, 5 thousand years ago. It was arguably bad judgment to completely finish the great grazing herds and the Mastodons but try telling that to a hungry lot of humans. The more we come to grips with the human as another animal species, one of many on earth, the easier it is to see how our own hubris is the issue everytime. To the person above who thought 7 billion humans above wasn’t pushing any planetary limits: while no individual human wants to feel like excess, and certainly homicide is never what is being suggested, the fact remains that a wise human race that wishes to have a healthy planet and lots of resources per capita will steer their population over generations to be healthy. I’m rather convinced that the same way a rabbit population without predators will suffer disease if it blooms too much, that this is what we are starting to encounter as we brush with the limits of our host in terms of our reckless dominance and destruction on the only known home to life so far… No one wants to hear about limits or rules but hey, reality called…
jjoonathan 5y ago
It's not so much the abstract idea of depopulation that has people upset at you, it's that every concrete proposal for getting there involves genocide and suffering.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  No it's not that at all actually. It's a plain head-in-sand denial of reality that I'm talking about encountering. Same kinds of thinking cause the exact same kinds of knee jerk reactions, denialism, conspiracy theories, etc. when you suggest green house gas emissions are not sustainable and should be reduced too. And I should say that you're wrong about that genocide assertion too. In most of the countries with the highest consumption and environmental footprints, populations are naturally in slight decline on their own. No genocide or suffering needed to reduce populations in those places.
  - jjoonathan 5y ago
    You seem quite convinced that you have the carrying capacity argument correct. I can understand why: it's really easy to come up with doomsday arguments of this form. Extrapolate any rising trend against any perceived constraint and bingo bango you have your prophecy. Thing is, people have been doing this since the dawn of history, and they've been spectacularly wrong since the dawn of history. Doomer models just never seem to be nearly as clever as real human beings. One day the doomers might actually get it right for once. I'm not holding my breath, but even if I were, proactive genocide would be a tough sell. > populations are naturally in slight decline on their own I am aware. > No genocide or suffering needed That depends entirely on why you think this trend is happening, but if you're willing to accept the trend as it stands then we can probably find common ground.
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      Complete rubbish. We're past the sustainable carraying capacity because we have already brought about mass extinction events, irreversible destruction of habitat and environment with our existing population (and it even started when the population was far lower, it's just that it's been accelerating). I have the counter example. There is no "model". Also it's strange you accuse me of being a spectacularly wrong doomer when you were just now spouting easily disproven doomsaying about genocides. Maybe tone down the ad hominems a little at least while you're sitting in your glass house.
Groxx 5y ago
Greenhouse (specifically carbon dioxide) specifically might be solved, because trees exist and are pretty good at what they do, but I absolutely do not believe that a 95% reduction in population would lead to a consistently-healthy world. I think you dramatically underestimate our ability to pollute in small populations. Consider how bad air pollution was in London during the 1700s and 1800s.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  I didn't say a 95% reduction in population would lead to a consistently healthy world. I said if global population was 5% of what it is now, greenhouse gas emissions would practically be a non problem.
  - Groxx 5y ago
    Fair enough, and for carbon dioxide I mostly agree. But it definitely seems like this: >Habitat destruction, chemical pollution, mining, mineral and fossil fuel depletion, water depletion and contamination, farming practices and monocultures, human interference, etc., are all just horrific, are responsible for massive destruction and extinction of the environment, and aren't all suddenly going to get magic'ed away the instant we somehow get the GHG pollution thing under control (if we ever do). is claiming broad relation to population being above some threshold, since the whole comment is about overpopulation.
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      The aggregate environmental impact of those things are all quite directly related to population, yes. I don't understand what you're getting at.
  - Cullinet 5y ago
    What do you think about our ability to raise qualified adults enough to manage the continuing industrial sectors of the planet, if we were 5% of our present number? Subjectively and with zero rigor I think that possibly 150 to 100 years ago levels of population were capable of creating so much of the modern world. But from the Holocaust to Pol Pot, the Bangladesh civil war, mass exterminations of some of humanity's most capable gene pools is something that I very badly want to be convinced hasn't badly harmed the species potential.
AlanSE 5y ago
Well, people get wildly irrational at me when I suggest that the only viable option here is for people to migrate from Earth into orbit. Space constraints will go away, because in 3-dimensional space everyone can live in as large of a house as they want but remain in a fast commute to urban centers of space cities. There are plenty of materials available on the moon to build whatever we want with. This can, of course, leave the focus on Earth to shift to biosphere remediation. After we take full intentional control of the planet's climate and shift 99% of human land use to the project, then I expect it will still be 100 years or more before we get back to pre-industrial natural productivity. This won't happen on its own, I'm assuming we put a large amount of artificial accelerators into to the process. It won't be the same as before humans, but we could quickly get back to the same megafauna numbers as before. Rough equivalents to pre-industrial ecosystems will eventually work out the missing niches.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  It sounds like you agree that population levels on Earth are unsustainable and reducing them would help to preserve the environment. Now certainly you can see why your ideas may be a little harder to accept as the scientific fact that human activity at even much smaller levels as today's population has caused terrible environmental destruction, extinction, etc., and with a lot more room to disagree, but so long as you approach the conversations humbly and with a willingness to consider differing opinions as you would have people consider your opinion I sympathize. Some people just react irrationally.
- carbonguy 5y ago
  I suspect part of the reason people have a strong response to your suggestion is that it's patently impractical, and thus easy to pick apart. To offer one small critique: you suggest that we first need "people to migrate from Earth into orbit," THEN "take full intentional control of the planet's climate" - surely if we have the ability to fully control Earth's climate, we don't need everyone in orbit? And, since we have to develop the technologies necessary to implement your plan anyway, wouldn't it be easier to just figure out how to remediate the biosphere directly, instead of figuring out how to get everyone into orbit, THEN figure out full planetary climate control, THEN artificially-accelerated natural productivity restoration?
jdkee 5y ago
2430 A.D. by Asimov. "Earth has established a totally balanced and ecologically stable underground society (similar to that portrayed in Asimov's novel The Caves of Steel). But one man, Cranwitz, regarded as a deviant and eccentric because he keeps a few animals as pets, refuses to get rid of these animals, the last non-human inhabitants of the planet. He is finally persuaded by his sector representatives to exterminate his pets, but also commits suicide. This leaves Earth in 'perfection', with its fifteen trillion inhabitants, twenty billion tons of human brain and the 'exquisite nothingness of uniformity'."
benatkin 5y ago
> I frequently get people becoming wildly irrational and upset at me when I suggest that the current population is not supported by the earth sustainably Irrationality is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Exhibit A
ijidak 5y ago
"the appointed time came to bring to ruin those ruining the earth" Rev 11:18 I find it interesting that ruining of the earth by humans was predicted approx 2,000 years ago. Sadly we have lived up to the hype. And, we show no signs of making the wholesale changes needed to turn this ship around. But, if you're interested in an often pooh-poohed alternative, you may find some comfort reading this: https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/peace-happiness/save-earth/ https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/peace-happiness/save-e...
OtomotO 5y ago
Antinatalism is a thing, yes. You're not alone and it doesn't matter if something is popular. Apart from the adoption rate (no pun intended)
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or you actually think what I wrote equates to antinatalism, but no that's not my believe. No more than someone who believes the earth's carrying capacity is 100 billion saying that 200 billion is too many people would be antinatalism.
- idiocrat 5y ago
  Please be aware there is also the "The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement". https://www.vhemt.org/ https://www.vhemt.org/ It is led by Les Knight. Here is quick explanation, from their site: ''' VHEMT (pronounced vehement) is a movement not an organization. It’s a movement advanced by people who care about life on planet Earth. We’re not just a bunch of misanthropes and anti-social, Malthusian misfits, taking morbid delight whenever disaster strikes humans. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Voluntary human extinction is the humanitarian alternative to human disasters. We don’t carry on about how the human race has shown itself to be a greedy, amoral parasite on the once-healthy face of this planet. That type of negativity offers no solution to the inexorable horrors which human activity is causing. Rather, The Movement presents an encouraging alternative to the callous exploitation and wholesale destruction of Earth’s ecology. As VHEMT Volunteers know, the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens... us. ''' I certainly like the promotional video, "Thank You For Not Breeding". http://vimeo.com/7652051 http://vimeo.com/7652051
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    This group will go extinct just by following their own philosophy. Brilliant.
    - Typhon 5y ago
momenti 5y ago
You are not the first "genius" realizing this. Look up Ted Kaczynski. But he was smarter than you because he considered what this reality entails for the ruling classes: Namely the decision whether they shouldn't give up on maintaining the masses once technologically feasible. It is for this reason that it is a taboo and has to remain one. Everything else is propaganda and chatter.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > You are not the first "genius" realizing this. Found another one.
ekianjo 5y ago
> and upset at me when I suggest that the current population is not supported by the earth sustainably, because you are wrong. 100 years ago people said we would all starve when the world population reaches 1 billion people. then we not only not starved but became wealthier as well. Doom predictions are mostly damn wrong.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  No it's not because I'm wrong, because you can argue with or debate with people who are wrong (or you believe are wrong) without becoming irrational and angry. And I'm not making any predictions, just observations. This might come down to semantics on what exactly you suppose sustainable to mean or whether or not it is desirable, but causing an ongoing mass extinction event does not meet my definition of sustainable. I'm talking about environmental sustainability to be clear (hopefully it was from the context but I may not have been explicit enough). I don't doubt we could physically feed billions more people at least as long as we have cheap energy and fertilizers from fossil fuels if we accepted ever increasing environmental destruction.
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    > And I'm not making any predictions, just observations. Claiming we are in the middle of a mass extinction event is a prediction, not an observation. It will become an observation when you have actually seen billions of species disappear over time. You don't extrapolate an extinction based on trends over dozens of years (especially on mostly imperfect data).
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      No I'm talking about actual observations. I'm not going to nitpick about semantics with you no this. Extinction rates are 2-3 orders of magnitude higher than normal, which is not sustainable.

toqy 5y ago

> I frequently get people becoming wildly irrational and upset at me when I suggest that the current population is not supported by the earth sustainably Arguing about how many people the earth can sustain is pointless without defining what kind of life you expect people to be living. How many billions can capitalism + western rates of consumption sustain and for how long vs a simpler way of life. > aren't all suddenly going to get magic'ed away and neither are all the people deemed excess by your world view, which is probably the part people get riled up about.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
> Arguing about how many people the earth can sustain is pointless without defining what kind of life you expect people to be living. How many billions can capitalism + western rates of consumption sustain and for how long vs a simpler way of life. Not really, 10 billion "simpler way of life" people have huge catastrophic footprints as well. Farming being a major one. But the point was not to come to a precise figure and metrics, it's an unhinged kneejerk reaction to any suggestion that the population is not sustainable. Which it is not. > and neither are all the people deemed excess by your world view, This false ad hominem suggests you are one of the people my original post refers to. _My_ world view deems no person "excess". It acknowledges a simple reality that our population is not sustainable and reducing it or limiting growth is critically important for the environment and makes all other environmental efforts simpler or less severe. > which is probably the part people get riled up about. No, it's not. They get unhinged about the idea that population is a serious environmental problem at its current levels let alone increased levels. The (baseless and unfounded) claims they make being that it's not a problem "because earth's carrying capacity is 50 billion people" or other absurd statements along those lines.
- dwaltrip 5y ago
  They probably get upset as they assume you are implying some moral judgment against having kids. Most people want kids, just like those before us for untold hundreds of thousands of years.
  - iostream23 5y ago
    There’s a difference between one kid, two kids, three kids, and that guy who had 150 kids or somesuch. There isn’t an infinite carrying capacity to any planet, nor is it reasonable to have excess of a singular species for it is at the expense of others. Some may have hurt feelings if you explain that more than 2 kids increases the population, but then “go forth and multiply” is probably not currently sound guidance, given what we now know, vs what we knew, say, 5 thousand years ago. It was arguably bad judgment to completely finish the great grazing herds and the Mastodons but try telling that to a hungry lot of humans. The more we come to grips with the human as another animal species, one of many on earth, the easier it is to see how our own hubris is the issue everytime. To the person above who thought 7 billion humans above wasn’t pushing any planetary limits: while no individual human wants to feel like excess, and certainly homicide is never what is being suggested, the fact remains that a wise human race that wishes to have a healthy planet and lots of resources per capita will steer their population over generations to be healthy. I’m rather convinced that the same way a rabbit population without predators will suffer disease if it blooms too much, that this is what we are starting to encounter as we brush with the limits of our host in terms of our reckless dominance and destruction on the only known home to life so far… No one wants to hear about limits or rules but hey, reality called…

jjoonathan 5y ago

It's not so much the abstract idea of depopulation that has people upset at you, it's that every concrete proposal for getting there involves genocide and suffering.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
No it's not that at all actually. It's a plain head-in-sand denial of reality that I'm talking about encountering. Same kinds of thinking cause the exact same kinds of knee jerk reactions, denialism, conspiracy theories, etc. when you suggest green house gas emissions are not sustainable and should be reduced too. And I should say that you're wrong about that genocide assertion too. In most of the countries with the highest consumption and environmental footprints, populations are naturally in slight decline on their own. No genocide or suffering needed to reduce populations in those places.
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  You seem quite convinced that you have the carrying capacity argument correct. I can understand why: it's really easy to come up with doomsday arguments of this form. Extrapolate any rising trend against any perceived constraint and bingo bango you have your prophecy. Thing is, people have been doing this since the dawn of history, and they've been spectacularly wrong since the dawn of history. Doomer models just never seem to be nearly as clever as real human beings. One day the doomers might actually get it right for once. I'm not holding my breath, but even if I were, proactive genocide would be a tough sell. > populations are naturally in slight decline on their own I am aware. > No genocide or suffering needed That depends entirely on why you think this trend is happening, but if you're willing to accept the trend as it stands then we can probably find common ground.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    Complete rubbish. We're past the sustainable carraying capacity because we have already brought about mass extinction events, irreversible destruction of habitat and environment with our existing population (and it even started when the population was far lower, it's just that it's been accelerating). I have the counter example. There is no "model". Also it's strange you accuse me of being a spectacularly wrong doomer when you were just now spouting easily disproven doomsaying about genocides. Maybe tone down the ad hominems a little at least while you're sitting in your glass house.

Groxx 5y ago

Greenhouse (specifically carbon dioxide) specifically might be solved, because trees exist and are pretty good at what they do, but I absolutely do not believe that a 95% reduction in population would lead to a consistently-healthy world. I think you dramatically underestimate our ability to pollute in small populations. Consider how bad air pollution was in London during the 1700s and 1800s.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
I didn't say a 95% reduction in population would lead to a consistently healthy world. I said if global population was 5% of what it is now, greenhouse gas emissions would practically be a non problem.
- Groxx 5y ago
  Fair enough, and for carbon dioxide I mostly agree. But it definitely seems like this: >Habitat destruction, chemical pollution, mining, mineral and fossil fuel depletion, water depletion and contamination, farming practices and monocultures, human interference, etc., are all just horrific, are responsible for massive destruction and extinction of the environment, and aren't all suddenly going to get magic'ed away the instant we somehow get the GHG pollution thing under control (if we ever do). is claiming broad relation to population being above some threshold, since the whole comment is about overpopulation.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    The aggregate environmental impact of those things are all quite directly related to population, yes. I don't understand what you're getting at.
- Cullinet 5y ago
  What do you think about our ability to raise qualified adults enough to manage the continuing industrial sectors of the planet, if we were 5% of our present number? Subjectively and with zero rigor I think that possibly 150 to 100 years ago levels of population were capable of creating so much of the modern world. But from the Holocaust to Pol Pot, the Bangladesh civil war, mass exterminations of some of humanity's most capable gene pools is something that I very badly want to be convinced hasn't badly harmed the species potential.

AlanSE 5y ago

Well, people get wildly irrational at me when I suggest that the only viable option here is for people to migrate from Earth into orbit. Space constraints will go away, because in 3-dimensional space everyone can live in as large of a house as they want but remain in a fast commute to urban centers of space cities. There are plenty of materials available on the moon to build whatever we want with. This can, of course, leave the focus on Earth to shift to biosphere remediation. After we take full intentional control of the planet's climate and shift 99% of human land use to the project, then I expect it will still be 100 years or more before we get back to pre-industrial natural productivity. This won't happen on its own, I'm assuming we put a large amount of artificial accelerators into to the process. It won't be the same as before humans, but we could quickly get back to the same megafauna numbers as before. Rough equivalents to pre-industrial ecosystems will eventually work out the missing niches.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
It sounds like you agree that population levels on Earth are unsustainable and reducing them would help to preserve the environment. Now certainly you can see why your ideas may be a little harder to accept as the scientific fact that human activity at even much smaller levels as today's population has caused terrible environmental destruction, extinction, etc., and with a lot more room to disagree, but so long as you approach the conversations humbly and with a willingness to consider differing opinions as you would have people consider your opinion I sympathize. Some people just react irrationally.
carbonguy 5y ago
I suspect part of the reason people have a strong response to your suggestion is that it's patently impractical, and thus easy to pick apart. To offer one small critique: you suggest that we first need "people to migrate from Earth into orbit," THEN "take full intentional control of the planet's climate" - surely if we have the ability to fully control Earth's climate, we don't need everyone in orbit? And, since we have to develop the technologies necessary to implement your plan anyway, wouldn't it be easier to just figure out how to remediate the biosphere directly, instead of figuring out how to get everyone into orbit, THEN figure out full planetary climate control, THEN artificially-accelerated natural productivity restoration?

jdkee 5y ago

2430 A.D. by Asimov. "Earth has established a totally balanced and ecologically stable underground society (similar to that portrayed in Asimov's novel The Caves of Steel). But one man, Cranwitz, regarded as a deviant and eccentric because he keeps a few animals as pets, refuses to get rid of these animals, the last non-human inhabitants of the planet. He is finally persuaded by his sector representatives to exterminate his pets, but also commits suicide. This leaves Earth in 'perfection', with its fifteen trillion inhabitants, twenty billion tons of human brain and the 'exquisite nothingness of uniformity'."

benatkin 5y ago

> I frequently get people becoming wildly irrational and upset at me when I suggest that the current population is not supported by the earth sustainably Irrationality is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
Exhibit A

ijidak 5y ago

"the appointed time came to bring to ruin those ruining the earth" Rev 11:18 I find it interesting that ruining of the earth by humans was predicted approx 2,000 years ago. Sadly we have lived up to the hype. And, we show no signs of making the wholesale changes needed to turn this ship around. But, if you're interested in an often pooh-poohed alternative, you may find some comfort reading this: https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/peace-happiness/save-earth/ https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/peace-happiness/save-e...

OtomotO 5y ago

Antinatalism is a thing, yes. You're not alone and it doesn't matter if something is popular. Apart from the adoption rate (no pun intended)

throwawaylinux 5y ago
Not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or you actually think what I wrote equates to antinatalism, but no that's not my believe. No more than someone who believes the earth's carrying capacity is 100 billion saying that 200 billion is too many people would be antinatalism.
idiocrat 5y ago
Please be aware there is also the "The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement". https://www.vhemt.org/ https://www.vhemt.org/ It is led by Les Knight. Here is quick explanation, from their site: ''' VHEMT (pronounced vehement) is a movement not an organization. It’s a movement advanced by people who care about life on planet Earth. We’re not just a bunch of misanthropes and anti-social, Malthusian misfits, taking morbid delight whenever disaster strikes humans. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Voluntary human extinction is the humanitarian alternative to human disasters. We don’t carry on about how the human race has shown itself to be a greedy, amoral parasite on the once-healthy face of this planet. That type of negativity offers no solution to the inexorable horrors which human activity is causing. Rather, The Movement presents an encouraging alternative to the callous exploitation and wholesale destruction of Earth’s ecology. As VHEMT Volunteers know, the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens... us. ''' I certainly like the promotional video, "Thank You For Not Breeding". http://vimeo.com/7652051 http://vimeo.com/7652051
- ekianjo 5y ago
  This group will go extinct just by following their own philosophy. Brilliant.
  - Typhon 5y ago

momenti 5y ago

You are not the first "genius" realizing this. Look up Ted Kaczynski. But he was smarter than you because he considered what this reality entails for the ruling classes: Namely the decision whether they shouldn't give up on maintaining the masses once technologically feasible. It is for this reason that it is a taboo and has to remain one. Everything else is propaganda and chatter.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
> You are not the first "genius" realizing this. Found another one.

ekianjo 5y ago

> and upset at me when I suggest that the current population is not supported by the earth sustainably, because you are wrong. 100 years ago people said we would all starve when the world population reaches 1 billion people. then we not only not starved but became wealthier as well. Doom predictions are mostly damn wrong.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
No it's not because I'm wrong, because you can argue with or debate with people who are wrong (or you believe are wrong) without becoming irrational and angry. And I'm not making any predictions, just observations. This might come down to semantics on what exactly you suppose sustainable to mean or whether or not it is desirable, but causing an ongoing mass extinction event does not meet my definition of sustainable. I'm talking about environmental sustainability to be clear (hopefully it was from the context but I may not have been explicit enough). I don't doubt we could physically feed billions more people at least as long as we have cheap energy and fertilizers from fossil fuels if we accepted ever increasing environmental destruction.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  > And I'm not making any predictions, just observations. Claiming we are in the middle of a mass extinction event is a prediction, not an observation. It will become an observation when you have actually seen billions of species disappear over time. You don't extrapolate an extinction based on trends over dozens of years (especially on mostly imperfect data).
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    No I'm talking about actual observations. I'm not going to nitpick about semantics with you no this. Extinction rates are 2-3 orders of magnitude higher than normal, which is not sustainable.