3 ms·
I'd say it is the root cause, since habitat destruction and pollution have been proportional to population size. If the human pop. hadn't grown geometrically t
by nverno 3y ago
I'd say it is the root cause, since habitat destruction and pollution have been proportional to population size. If the human pop. hadn't grown geometrically throughout recent history, there almost certainly wouldn't have been the global decimation of wildlife/habitat we have today.
To support such a large population, half of the earth's habitable land is currently being used for agriculture - that's a shitload of habitat destruction - that's not even accounting for all the rest of the space people use for homes, etc.
- krainboltgreene 3y agoYou can say this stuff all you want, but not only do the facts not support it but also the analysis of the facts disproves these statements.
- nverno 3y ago> half of the earth's habitable land is currently being used for agriculture This is a fact (to some margin of error). It's indisputable that humans require land to produce food through agriculture, and that amount of required land increases with population size. I'm curious what analysis could possibly show human population growth doesn't result in more wildlife habitat destruction. Since we stopped being hunter-gatherers, we've required agriculture to support large sedentary populations. Land use by humans/wildlife is generally a zero-sum game.