4 ms·

This makes no sense whatsoever. 8 billion is too many, for what, for whom? Next to 8 billion of us, we also take the luxury of keeping and feeding billions of a

by bojan 4y ago

This makes no sense whatsoever. 8 billion is too many, for what, for whom? Next to 8 billion of us, we also take the luxury of keeping and feeding billions of animals, which is enormously expensive and horrible for the environment. Let's start first by making sure we only keep and feed animals that we actually need, and then discuss if we are too many. I wonder how many humans this planet can sustain for every cow that is out there.

jl6 4y ago
8 billion is too many to also take the luxury of keeping and feeding billions of animals. If we had 10x fewer people and kept 10x fewer cattle (and more generally, consumed 10x fewer resources), the environment would be doing just fine. But it’s not doing fine, and that’s why 8 billion is too many.
- kmlx 4y ago
  > If we had 10x fewer people and kept 10x fewer cattle (and more generally, consumed 10x fewer resources), the environment would be doing just fine. why? and why would it not be worse? just because of the number of people?
xtracto 4y ago
IMHO 8 billion is too many for the size of the earth. With a total of 150 million km2 in land, each person corresponds to 0.018 km2 or 18000m2 which is equivalent to a 130x130 meter space. That includes sleeping, eating and "food growing" spaces. And the 150 million also includes inhospitable places. I think that no matter how efficient our food generation processes get, this is very little space per person. That's why people live in the air and on top of each other.
- gls2ro 4y ago
  While your math is correct it also contains a false assumption about how much land is needed: What do you think about Netherlands? It seems to me they had a good way to use the space while keeping it green and also caring about nature. Earth can support at least twice the current number of people with a better organisation while also disrupting less the natural habitat. What makes it hard to achieve this is our focus on nationalities and countries instead of thinking about a global society combined with our greed and our individual/centrism way to think about the world as if the only way forward is us vs the forest or us vs the wild animals ... we should focus more on how to embed into nature and not how to change it to make it work for us.
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
So should we extinct all the animals we don't eat or that don't pollinate plants? They're clearly wasting food an oxygen...

by bojan 4y ago

jl6 4y ago

8 billion is too many to also take the luxury of keeping and feeding billions of animals. If we had 10x fewer people and kept 10x fewer cattle (and more generally, consumed 10x fewer resources), the environment would be doing just fine. But it’s not doing fine, and that’s why 8 billion is too many.

kmlx 4y ago
> If we had 10x fewer people and kept 10x fewer cattle (and more generally, consumed 10x fewer resources), the environment would be doing just fine. why? and why would it not be worse? just because of the number of people?

xtracto 4y ago

IMHO 8 billion is too many for the size of the earth. With a total of 150 million km2 in land, each person corresponds to 0.018 km2 or 18000m2 which is equivalent to a 130x130 meter space. That includes sleeping, eating and "food growing" spaces. And the 150 million also includes inhospitable places. I think that no matter how efficient our food generation processes get, this is very little space per person. That's why people live in the air and on top of each other.

gls2ro 4y ago
While your math is correct it also contains a false assumption about how much land is needed: What do you think about Netherlands? It seems to me they had a good way to use the space while keeping it green and also caring about nature. Earth can support at least twice the current number of people with a better organisation while also disrupting less the natural habitat. What makes it hard to achieve this is our focus on nationalities and countries instead of thinking about a global society combined with our greed and our individual/centrism way to think about the world as if the only way forward is us vs the forest or us vs the wild animals ... we should focus more on how to embed into nature and not how to change it to make it work for us.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

So should we extinct all the animals we don't eat or that don't pollinate plants? They're clearly wasting food an oxygen...