5 ms·
What’s special about 8 billion? Granted, it’s a very large number, the largest human population the Earth has ever seen. 50 years ago we were only half as many.
by credit_guy 5y ago
What’s special about 8 billion? Granted, it’s a very large number, the largest human population the Earth has ever seen. 50 years ago we were only half as many.
But 50 years ago someone could say (and it’s virtually guaranteed someone did say) that 4 billion is too many. Because 4 billion at the time was the largest number of people simultanously alive on our little planet. It was twice as many as there were just 50 years before.
And I bet in 1922, people were thinking that 2 billion is to many. We had just left behind a devastating war and an even more lethal pandemic. It mustve appeared that the planet just cannot bear 2 billion of us.
So, when you say the world population should go down a bit, do you mean down to 7, to 5, or to 1 billion? Why not 200 million. We were about as many during the Roman Empire and still perfectly capable of astonishing feats of war and devastation.
- melling 5y ago8 billion people is the current population that’s why it was mentioned. Look at all the coal we burn, Climate change is unavoidable at this point… pollution of the oceans, encroachment onto wildlife, etc. Humans have done a lot of damage. also, we grow chickens in cages, overfish the oceans… Anyway, I’m really amazed that I have to go into detail… I thought we were all on the same page for the “human footprint “ on the planet
- credit_guy 5y agoStill, would you be content with 6 billion, or what?
- t-3 5y agoAbsolute number doesn't matter, impact does. Economic demand for environmental destruction is easiest to reduce by reducing population though.
- credit_guy 5y ago> I thought we were all on the same page for the “human footprint “ on the planet We are on the same page on the some things, but not all. You say we burn too much coal. I say that too. We are on the same page. I say we need to burn less coal. You say there need to be fewer of us. We are not on the same page. The thing is, we already are burning less coal. Much less. The US has burned 1 billion tons annually between 2000 and 2010. Now we burn half of that. We did not need to reduce our population by half in order to achieve that. We can achieve lots of similar things without reducing our population.
- melling 5y agoGlobally we are burning a lot more coal than 20 years ago. https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/global-coal-plant-capacity-edges-up-2021-hitting-climate-report-2022-04-26/ https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/global-coal-pla... 40% of electricity globally is generated with coal. US per capita CO2 emissions are still high. If all 8 billion people got to live like the average American, we’d have an even bigger problem.
- credit_guy 5y agoFair enough. We need to do something about this. We are fully on the same page. That does not mean we need to be fewer. Just like the US could reduce its coal consumption by a factor of 2 (and more will come), the rest of the world can do that too. The technology is here. Everywhere you read, they say it's more economical to build a new solar power plant than to operate an existing coal plant. That may be an exaggeration, but solar is getting very competitive. Coal is on its way out.
- melling 5y agoNope. The facts clearly show you are wrong. Good luck with climate change. https://www.statista.com/statistics/265507/global-coal-consumption-in-oil-equivalent/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/265507/global-coal-consu... Solar is 3% of electricity https://www.c2es.org/content/renewable-energy/ https://www.c2es.org/content/renewable-energy/