3 ms·
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 backyard
by 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 agoIt'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 agoI 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.