3 ms·

World population in 1980: 4.4 billion World population today: 8.0 billion … We need more land, houses, cars, energy, … overfishing: https://www.worldwildlif

World population in 1980: 4.4 billion World population today: 8.0 billion … We need more land, houses, cars, energy, … overfishing: https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/overfishing https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/overfishing Need to burn down the rainforests for cattle: https://wwf.panda.org/discover/knowledge_hub/where_we_work/amazon/amazon_threats/unsustainable_cattle_ranching/ https://wwf.panda.org/discover/knowledge_hub/where_we_work/a... Electricity generation with fossil fuels looks like it tripled: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/world-electricity-generation-by-fuel-1971-2017 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/world-electri...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
carbadtraingood 4y ago
"Need". We don't need to do those things. We choose to do those things.
- melling 4y ago
  Keep telling yourself that right up until all the damage is permanent. “If only the people in the Amazon chose not to burn down the forest for cattle” “If only China and India didn’t burn so much coal” “If only people didn’t eat so much fish” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
  - carbadtraingood 4y ago
    What? I'm not sure what you are saying... We don't need to eat beef, both here and in Brazil. We choose to, in both places. We, locally, need to regulate harder and push harder globally to protect things.
    - melling 4y ago
      I’m saying that “If only we didn’t eat beef” is not a workable solution. What’s important is that people realize they are proposing solutions that sound good but are not helpful. Half the Amazon will be torched before you realize this?
      - carbadtraingood 4y ago
        Ok, so you are saying current and increasing beef consumption rates are fine? I'm saying we should price the externalities into the cost of beef. What other solution is there?
nerdponx 4y ago
Meanwhile people wring their hands and fret over declining population growth, because of the short-term effects it will have (on the order of a couple of decades). Seems incredibly short-sighted to me. I see no reason why we should specifically pursue growth, rather than a stable population. Short-term population decrease would even be a good thing, as the older and larger generations eventually pass on and their children and grandchildren have fewer children of their own.
- trgn 4y ago
  I think it's less about population growth and more about habitat destruction. One does not imply the other. Town living instead of suburbs, more pollinator gardens. That already will make a huge difference.
  - melling 4y ago
    More than half the world lives in urban areas.l, which is an increase https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization “More than half of the world’s population now live in urban areas — increasingly in highly-dense cities. However, urban settings are a relatively new phenomenon in human history. This transition has transformed the way we live, work, travel and build networks.”
  - nerdponx 4y ago
    I don't know. How much habitat has been destroyed for farming, resource extraction, and other industrial purposes like waste storage?
mistrial9 4y ago
the vast majority of the population growth is in places that have never seen this species; overly-general advice is not going to solve this particular problem
- melling 4y ago
  Strange, the article specifically mentions urban development. Where is the disconnect? “by between 22% and 72% over the past decade. Legal and illegal logging and deforestation to make space for agriculture and urban development has already destroyed substantial areas of the butterflies’ winter shelter in Mexico and California, while pesticides and herbicides used in intensive agriculture across the range kill butterflies and milkweed, the host plant that the larvae of the monarch butterfly feed on.” The population of Mexico has doubled since 1980 and the US has gone from 227 million to 340 million people

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

carbadtraingood 4y ago

"Need". We don't need to do those things. We choose to do those things.

melling 4y ago
Keep telling yourself that right up until all the damage is permanent. “If only the people in the Amazon chose not to burn down the forest for cattle” “If only China and India didn’t burn so much coal” “If only people didn’t eat so much fish” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
- carbadtraingood 4y ago
  What? I'm not sure what you are saying... We don't need to eat beef, both here and in Brazil. We choose to, in both places. We, locally, need to regulate harder and push harder globally to protect things.
  - melling 4y ago
    I’m saying that “If only we didn’t eat beef” is not a workable solution. What’s important is that people realize they are proposing solutions that sound good but are not helpful. Half the Amazon will be torched before you realize this?
    - carbadtraingood 4y ago
      Ok, so you are saying current and increasing beef consumption rates are fine? I'm saying we should price the externalities into the cost of beef. What other solution is there?

nerdponx 4y ago

Meanwhile people wring their hands and fret over declining population growth, because of the short-term effects it will have (on the order of a couple of decades). Seems incredibly short-sighted to me. I see no reason why we should specifically pursue growth, rather than a stable population. Short-term population decrease would even be a good thing, as the older and larger generations eventually pass on and their children and grandchildren have fewer children of their own.

trgn 4y ago
I think it's less about population growth and more about habitat destruction. One does not imply the other. Town living instead of suburbs, more pollinator gardens. That already will make a huge difference.
- melling 4y ago
  More than half the world lives in urban areas.l, which is an increase https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization “More than half of the world’s population now live in urban areas — increasingly in highly-dense cities. However, urban settings are a relatively new phenomenon in human history. This transition has transformed the way we live, work, travel and build networks.”
- nerdponx 4y ago
  I don't know. How much habitat has been destroyed for farming, resource extraction, and other industrial purposes like waste storage?

mistrial9 4y ago

the vast majority of the population growth is in places that have never seen this species; overly-general advice is not going to solve this particular problem

melling 4y ago
Strange, the article specifically mentions urban development. Where is the disconnect? “by between 22% and 72% over the past decade. Legal and illegal logging and deforestation to make space for agriculture and urban development has already destroyed substantial areas of the butterflies’ winter shelter in Mexico and California, while pesticides and herbicides used in intensive agriculture across the range kill butterflies and milkweed, the host plant that the larvae of the monarch butterfly feed on.” The population of Mexico has doubled since 1980 and the US has gone from 227 million to 340 million people