3 ms·

> 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 collapsin

> 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.

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.