4 ms·

>I really doubt that the world can support 8bn people with the average US standard of living That's a completely different problem. So basically what you want

>I really doubt that the world can support 8bn people with the average US standard of living That's a completely different problem. So basically what you want is to poor people to stay poor. Well, luckily technology improves and with that resource consumption is optimized. But that wont happen if you halve the population because there will be half of the scientists and engineers to do it (and likely, much less than half).

padjo 4y ago
I’m definitely not saying I want the poor to stay poor! I’m saying I’d like more equality and that isn’t possible at current technology levels. I don’t buy that decreasing population would limit technological progress at all. The vast majority of people are currently living subsistence existences and contributing almost nothing to technological progress. We could easily reduce population and end up with more not less scientists and engineers
dathos 4y ago
But that’s what you’re saying: > The planet can sustain much more people This is only true if we add only poor people. I think this argument that engineers or scientists will save the world removes the responsibility everyone has to consume less/better. Besides that this will probably only happen once the richer countries get hit, see the famines and water shortages all over the world. Mostly NGO’s and organizations like the UN are trying to fix those issues, while most of the money is spent on trying to get us to buy more
jack_pp 4y ago
The problem isn't that we want the poor to stay poor but rather that the "rich" utilize resources very inefficiently. By our current definition of rich it is impossible for every human to live like the rich, that would mean automating everything like food production, food delivery, food preparation, construction and all of the associated menial labor which we are a very long way from. In theory you are right, there is a lot of space to grow the population but in practice most people want to live in big popular cities and chase the dream of being rich which simply isn't sustainable and promotes a lot of waste. A lot of people as they mature will give up their big city life dreams once they realize the cost / stress / commute isn't worth it unless you're very successful and rich. They move to the city to "make it", survival of the fittest selects some % of people who make it and the rest either cope with distractions / drugs or move to cheaper areas. So we have a lot of space for many people to live but they won't live in luxury and since human nature is to compare ourselves to others and strive to climb social hierarchies most of the population will just overcrowd the already popular areas to live which is a problem

padjo 4y ago

I’m definitely not saying I want the poor to stay poor! I’m saying I’d like more equality and that isn’t possible at current technology levels. I don’t buy that decreasing population would limit technological progress at all. The vast majority of people are currently living subsistence existences and contributing almost nothing to technological progress. We could easily reduce population and end up with more not less scientists and engineers

dathos 4y ago

But that’s what you’re saying: > The planet can sustain much more people This is only true if we add only poor people. I think this argument that engineers or scientists will save the world removes the responsibility everyone has to consume less/better. Besides that this will probably only happen once the richer countries get hit, see the famines and water shortages all over the world. Mostly NGO’s and organizations like the UN are trying to fix those issues, while most of the money is spent on trying to get us to buy more

jack_pp 4y ago

The problem isn't that we want the poor to stay poor but rather that the "rich" utilize resources very inefficiently. By our current definition of rich it is impossible for every human to live like the rich, that would mean automating everything like food production, food delivery, food preparation, construction and all of the associated menial labor which we are a very long way from. In theory you are right, there is a lot of space to grow the population but in practice most people want to live in big popular cities and chase the dream of being rich which simply isn't sustainable and promotes a lot of waste. A lot of people as they mature will give up their big city life dreams once they realize the cost / stress / commute isn't worth it unless you're very successful and rich. They move to the city to "make it", survival of the fittest selects some % of people who make it and the rest either cope with distractions / drugs or move to cheaper areas. So we have a lot of space for many people to live but they won't live in luxury and since human nature is to compare ourselves to others and strive to climb social hierarchies most of the population will just overcrowd the already popular areas to live which is a problem