3 ms·
None of those things are inherently unsustainable. In fact, a smaller population that dies earlier is actually more sustainable than a large, long-living popula
by rcme 4y ago
None of those things are inherently unsustainable. In fact, a smaller population that dies earlier is actually more sustainable than a large, long-living population.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoA dwindling population eventually reaches 0
- rcme 4y agohttps://xkcd.com/605/ https://xkcd.com/605/ It seems more likely that an equilibrium would be reached before the population reaches 0.
- lm28469 4y agoUnsustainable as in "humanity will be wiped out ? Clearly no Unsustainable as in people are shadows of what they could be, people die way earlier than they should, &c ? Definitely Outliers excluded, the difference between an active/fit 60 years old and someone who's been fat their whole life at the same age is night and day. One has years/decades of healthy life to go, the other has one foot in the grave If it was an experiment on animals we would have pulled the plug 30 years ago
- rcme 4y agoI agree that if you measure outcomes by life expectancy or activity level, being obese is objectively bad. But we give people agency to make their own decisions, and obesity is a choice. It's both a personal choice, i.e. people choose their lifestyle and diet, and a societal choice, i.e. society chooses not to discourage unhealthy eating habits. Plenty of choices lead to objectively worse outcomes, but that doesn't mean those choices are unsustainable. It just means they're less than ideal.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]