4 ms·

I don't see the current level to be unsustainable at all. I see a total mismanagement of resources and incentives.

mytailorisrich 2y ago
> I don't see the current level to be unsustainable at all. Always very surprising to read this. Population has grown ~8x since 1900, environment is collapsing around us, billions of people are still living in poverty (i.e. their consumption of everything will go up if or when poverty is eradicated globally)... So, yes current population level is completely unsustainable.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  It all depends on how it's managed. If things are REALLY REALLY poorly managed, the entire Earth will be uninhabitable for anyone; with good management we could have >10x as many people as we do now.
  - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
    This seems like one of those discussions where people pull numbers out of their butts and then insist they are true.
    - dartos 2y ago
      Shhhh… you’re not supposed to say that out loud.
      - rowanG077 2y ago
        Please at least try to contribute to the discussion instead of throwing out empty platitudes.
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      We currently spend less than 5% of GDP on agriculture, there's a lot of headroom for more economically intensive methods that use less land.
      - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
        That doesn't seem a great rationalization - there are other factors outside of just "money spent".
  - rednafi 2y ago
    10x sound a bit wayward but I get your point.
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      I mean if everyone was vegetarian and commuted on bicycle it'd be no problem environmentally.
      - throwup238 2y ago
        That would be a disaster. We don’t have 10x more arable land that can be farmed at industrial scale. Global agricultural land is about 2/3rds pasture that can grow enough grass for ruminants but it can’t really grow food for humans. The amount of land used to grow fodder is actually a small fraction of the land animals use, so you wouldn’t gain much back, you’d just lose all the calories supported by land that is otherwise unproductive.
        HPsquared 2y ago
        Fair enough, but there are a LOT of options we just don't even look into because they're not profitable at current low food prices. It's like mineral resources vs reserves, basically where there's a will there's a way. Agriculture is currently less than 5% of GDP, there's a lot of headroom for putting more effort into it. Nuclear-powered vertical farming anyone?
  - mytailorisrich 2y ago
    > we could have >10x as many people as we do now. But with what living standards and quality of life? This would need stringent rationing of everything. Is our aim to improve living standards and quality of life or to squeeze as many people as possible on the planet even if that means living in a studio flat in a huge tower block with only a daily ration of nutritious yeast and a ban on travelling around or owning too many things? I'd rather see humanity live in houses with gardens and enjoy life and nature, and be able to see the world, but with 1 billion people on Earth instead of 10 billion.
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      Yeah it'd not be as nice, but it's technically possible. Probably the limiting factor (I think we're already seeing this) is people feeling they are too "crowded, cramped and hungry" and not feeling like having children.
- rowanG077 2y ago
  And the population in 1900 is ~6x that of the population in 1400. I'm not sure what you are getting at with such a comparison. It sounds totally meaningless to me.
numpad0 2y ago
I don't know which stance is closer to the reality, but it sometimes gives me pause that there are places like infinitely vast Kazakh steppe or endless backyards of Sakha republic whilst we're supposedly running out of land for humans globally. My supposition is that the Earth _is_ at full capacity by many meaningful metric such as GHG emissions, but when it comes to land area - it must be tiny minority of places like core Western Europe, northeast coastal US, or coastal Far East, that are at capacity. Definitely not everywhere.
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  It's not so much about space to build housing, which isn't much of an issue, but all the resources consumed by each human being, not least when they enjoy the living standards of a developed country. In any case, perhaps we'd also wish to keep wild areas wild [1] (that's also what protecting the environment means). [1] https://iucn.org/news/commission-ecosystem-management/201806/steppes-republic-kazakhstan https://iucn.org/news/commission-ecosystem-management/201806...
- rowanG077 2y ago
  I agree that the earth is over capacity at some things humans are doing. Like GHG emissions as you say. But this is precisely the mismanagement I was getting at. To prove overcapacity you also need to prove a degree of efficiency. You can't say there isn't enough food if you are throwing away 99% of the food source.
AtlasBarfed 2y ago
Stack people in pods, keep them plugged into VR entertainment, feed them paste. The Matrix is the ultimate goal of consumer capitalism. Your dreams of efficient resource use brought to life!!!!! The incentives are for rich to get rich, for the tautological purpose of being rich in unicorn horns bank account size. Politics, culture, society has been aligned to this over the last four decades as the echoes of collective identity from world war 2 faded away. Families and regulation, environmental social or whatever, are arbitrated away across global trading boundaries by the rich. I bet you can't wait to get a brain plug,let us know when you do

> I don't see the current level to be unsustainable at all. Always very surprising to read this. Population has grown ~8x since 1900, environment is collapsing around us, billions of people are still living in poverty (i.e. their consumption of everything will go up if or when poverty is eradicated globally)... So, yes current population level is completely unsustainable.

HPsquared 2y ago
It all depends on how it's managed. If things are REALLY REALLY poorly managed, the entire Earth will be uninhabitable for anyone; with good management we could have >10x as many people as we do now.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
  This seems like one of those discussions where people pull numbers out of their butts and then insist they are true.
  - dartos 2y ago
    Shhhh… you’re not supposed to say that out loud.
    - rowanG077 2y ago
      Please at least try to contribute to the discussion instead of throwing out empty platitudes.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    We currently spend less than 5% of GDP on agriculture, there's a lot of headroom for more economically intensive methods that use less land.
    - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
      That doesn't seem a great rationalization - there are other factors outside of just "money spent".
- rednafi 2y ago
  10x sound a bit wayward but I get your point.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    I mean if everyone was vegetarian and commuted on bicycle it'd be no problem environmentally.
    - throwup238 2y ago
      That would be a disaster. We don’t have 10x more arable land that can be farmed at industrial scale. Global agricultural land is about 2/3rds pasture that can grow enough grass for ruminants but it can’t really grow food for humans. The amount of land used to grow fodder is actually a small fraction of the land animals use, so you wouldn’t gain much back, you’d just lose all the calories supported by land that is otherwise unproductive.
      - HPsquared 2y ago
        Fair enough, but there are a LOT of options we just don't even look into because they're not profitable at current low food prices. It's like mineral resources vs reserves, basically where there's a will there's a way. Agriculture is currently less than 5% of GDP, there's a lot of headroom for putting more effort into it. Nuclear-powered vertical farming anyone?
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  > we could have >10x as many people as we do now. But with what living standards and quality of life? This would need stringent rationing of everything. Is our aim to improve living standards and quality of life or to squeeze as many people as possible on the planet even if that means living in a studio flat in a huge tower block with only a daily ration of nutritious yeast and a ban on travelling around or owning too many things? I'd rather see humanity live in houses with gardens and enjoy life and nature, and be able to see the world, but with 1 billion people on Earth instead of 10 billion.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    Yeah it'd not be as nice, but it's technically possible. Probably the limiting factor (I think we're already seeing this) is people feeling they are too "crowded, cramped and hungry" and not feeling like having children.
rowanG077 2y ago
And the population in 1900 is ~6x that of the population in 1400. I'm not sure what you are getting at with such a comparison. It sounds totally meaningless to me.

numpad0 2y ago

I don't know which stance is closer to the reality, but it sometimes gives me pause that there are places like infinitely vast Kazakh steppe or endless backyards of Sakha republic whilst we're supposedly running out of land for humans globally. My supposition is that the Earth _is_ at full capacity by many meaningful metric such as GHG emissions, but when it comes to land area - it must be tiny minority of places like core Western Europe, northeast coastal US, or coastal Far East, that are at capacity. Definitely not everywhere.

mytailorisrich 2y ago
It's not so much about space to build housing, which isn't much of an issue, but all the resources consumed by each human being, not least when they enjoy the living standards of a developed country. In any case, perhaps we'd also wish to keep wild areas wild [1] (that's also what protecting the environment means). [1] https://iucn.org/news/commission-ecosystem-management/201806/steppes-republic-kazakhstan https://iucn.org/news/commission-ecosystem-management/201806...
rowanG077 2y ago
I agree that the earth is over capacity at some things humans are doing. Like GHG emissions as you say. But this is precisely the mismanagement I was getting at. To prove overcapacity you also need to prove a degree of efficiency. You can't say there isn't enough food if you are throwing away 99% of the food source.

AtlasBarfed 2y ago

Stack people in pods, keep them plugged into VR entertainment, feed them paste. The Matrix is the ultimate goal of consumer capitalism. Your dreams of efficient resource use brought to life!!!!! The incentives are for rich to get rich, for the tautological purpose of being rich in unicorn horns bank account size. Politics, culture, society has been aligned to this over the last four decades as the echoes of collective identity from world war 2 faded away. Families and regulation, environmental social or whatever, are arbitrated away across global trading boundaries by the rich. I bet you can't wait to get a brain plug,let us know when you do