3 ms·

Also, the Earth can theoretically sustain a few more billions of humans if we become vegetarians (vegans?), but with our current population, we can't support ev

Also, the Earth can theoretically sustain a few more billions of humans if we become vegetarians (vegans?), but with our current population, we can't support everyone living like the average American. Americans also aren't impacted by the early degradation of the climate as much. There isn't incentive for Americans and other highly developed countries to greatly lower their own living standards, but it's either that or a culling.

thegrim33 3y ago
There's literally millions of square miles of completely unused land across the world. There's absolutely no reason we couldn't theoretically support a higher standard of living for everyone that currently lives, from a technological perspective.
- vacuity 3y ago
  Land isn't just fungible. Arable land that can be used to grow crops, fresh drinking water, greenhouse gas emissions (human transportation, freight, farming, computing, utilities, etc.), and housing are all factors to consider (some not related to land). For housing, more vertical cities would be helpful, but the suburban sprawl needs to be contained. Maybe we can squeeze in some more capacity, but it's reckless to act like we can continue barrelling forward with a high standard of living for everyone. We're not going to go extinct any time soon, but those of us on HN are generally more privileged and shouldn't be gambling on millions of lives.
  - dendrite9 3y ago
    In the US we also have been converting conveniently flat, fertile land near cities into warehouses, light industrial, and parking lots as those are more valuable uses per sq ft. And over time the light industrial doesn't look so good when compared with the townhouses, so they get redeveloped and the infrastructure moves further away, or gets consolidated. The same type of thing happens in cities with old warehouses near ports but I have less exposure to that.

thegrim33 3y ago

There's literally millions of square miles of completely unused land across the world. There's absolutely no reason we couldn't theoretically support a higher standard of living for everyone that currently lives, from a technological perspective.

vacuity 3y ago
Land isn't just fungible. Arable land that can be used to grow crops, fresh drinking water, greenhouse gas emissions (human transportation, freight, farming, computing, utilities, etc.), and housing are all factors to consider (some not related to land). For housing, more vertical cities would be helpful, but the suburban sprawl needs to be contained. Maybe we can squeeze in some more capacity, but it's reckless to act like we can continue barrelling forward with a high standard of living for everyone. We're not going to go extinct any time soon, but those of us on HN are generally more privileged and shouldn't be gambling on millions of lives.
- dendrite9 3y ago
  In the US we also have been converting conveniently flat, fertile land near cities into warehouses, light industrial, and parking lots as those are more valuable uses per sq ft. And over time the light industrial doesn't look so good when compared with the townhouses, so they get redeveloped and the infrastructure moves further away, or gets consolidated. The same type of thing happens in cities with old warehouses near ports but I have less exposure to that.