3 ms·
You are advocating contradictory points. If we return land to wildlife, that entails shrinking the human population by a hgue margin. The supposed benefit is
by hsn915 4y ago
You are advocating contradictory points.
If we return land to wildlife, that entails shrinking the human population by a hgue margin.
The supposed benefit is what, new medicine and regenrative dna? But why would we need that? Shrinking human population and human longevity are incompatible goals.
- nine_k 4y agoIt entails improving the efficiency of food production. Switching to LED lighting put more light in my house while lowering electricity consumption. Similarly switching to more efficient daily sources of protein (plants, shrimp, etc) can give more people more food, while yielding some of the land back to wildlife. To say nothing of inefficiencies due to weird local policies, like growing almonds and alfalfa in arid parts of California, etc.
- myshpa 4y agoLand surface ... 71% habitable land, rest glaciers & barren land Habitable land ... 50% agriculture, 37% forests, 1% urban and built-up land Agriculture ... 77% meat and dairy, 23% crops We would need just 25% of agriculture land we're using to feed the world on vegan diet, no shrinking necessary. But on the meat diet? We'll shrink for sure, just you wait. We'll diminish and go to the west. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets