4 ms·

I don't think you're discussing this in good faith. 134m^2 is well over 4 acres of land for a single person! That's larger than a typical small suburban subdivi

I don't think you're discussing this in good faith. 134m^2 is well over 4 acres of land for a single person! That's larger than a typical small suburban subdivision for a single person. A minimal immediate family size for a sustainable society is 4 people. That's 16+ acres for every single family, which is just massive. And the overwhelming majority of the Earth's land is perfectly acceptable for habitation. I suspect you think the opposite of arable is inhospitable. It is not. Arable is a very specific definition of land, which land can be turned into through irrigation and other basic technologies. It's not a sort of fixed quality metric. I'm not really following what point you're trying to make with the example cities. People move to urban areas for economic opportunities. It's thanks to the internet that deurbanization is becoming a more viable reality for more people, vaguely analogous to how vehicles enabled it at a different time in the past. Saudi Arabia existed before oil, so to speak, and will exist afterwards. Part of the reason you find them invested in basically everything stateside, to the chagrin of many, is because they're working to create a more sustainable economy. The nice thing about countries under defacto dictatorship type rules is the ability to carry out longer-term plans, even if they may sometimes be misguided. [1] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Line,_Saudi_Arabia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Line,_Saudi_Arabia

Johanx64 7mo ago
> I don't think you're discussing this in good faith. 134m^2 is well over 4 acres of land for a single person! 134m is a distance you can walk in a minute and a half. And you're already in somebody elses land. The only way you can present this as some sort of large plot of land is if you take some already overpopulated suburban area as a reference point where houses are lined up like boxes right next to another. And that's your only point of reference and you can't even fathom anything else. Subtracting the uninhabitable land from it, you basically get less than a mere hectare. Accusing others of acting in bad faith is game everyone can play. And it's very easy to do so since you're arguing how easily deserts, oceans or permafrost are habitable "if you really want to" (its just basic technology!) - when in truth it's achieved by pissing away one-time generational oil money to make it rain in the middle of the desert - no less. Party which will most likely wrap up with mass starvation (globally) when the pumps run dry (47 more years of this! give or take!) No sane person arguing in good faith would make arguments like this: "Well, planet isn't overpopulated, there's still a lot of room in the desert! oh, you can inhabit the oceans and permafrsot too! You could live on top of the Himalayas (you don't, but you could!) Oh, the sky is the limit! Oh, yes!" You aren't actually interested in truth, you're simply really, really want to and are programmed to multiply, and are working backwards (rationalizing) how actually planet isn't at all overpopulated or resource constrained, etc. That's what's actually happening. It's textbook.
- somenameforme 7mo ago
  Your ever-widening definition of "uninhabitable" includes vast areas of the world that are already habitated by millions, if not billions, of people. That is arguing in bad faith. And you're trying to argue that having more than a football field squared, for every person to live in - all by their selves, is a 'small parcel.' That is arguing in bad faith. And now you're adding child-like strawmen on top, which is once again - arguing in bad faith. And I still have no idea why you think oil running out has any role in your argument at all. I completely agree it'll run out eventually, possibly within our lifetimes. It's unlikely to lead to anything particularly catastrophic as once reserves do start declining (keep in mind proven reserves have been increasing faster than production for decades), the price of oil will steadily rise, and it'll create some solid economic incentives to comfortably transition to other energy sources.
  - Johanx64 7mo ago
    Should Antarctica be counted as habitable then? It constitutes something to the tune of 9% of Earths land mass. And it's already inhabited by millions if not billions of people? Really? Is Sahara-Desert habitable also? Not the tiny parcels next to an Oasis, not people that live next to Nile. But actual-effin-desert habitable? And billions live there - right chock in the middle of desert? Interesting, very interesting indeed! > And I still have no idea why you think oil running out has any role in your argument at all. Oddly enough, your argument that earth isn't overpopulated, because there's still "a lot of room left in the desert, look at Saudis, UAE, Quatar!" hinges on Oil! Your proof that deserts are habitable is basically - taking Saudis, UAE, Qatar - as an example. Which is true, if you have infinite-money-hack, you abso-effin-lutely can man make it rain in the middle of desert (or middle of the ocean on a megayacht), ACs, green-patios, lambos, pools, artificial islands, giga-turbo-mega-towers and the most opulent displays of wealth! Except it's not infinite money hack at all. It's very much 47years of partying left type of finite. > And now you're adding child-like strawmen on top, which is once again - arguing in bad faith. Dude, your whole opening statement was how few people on earth there are or how large the earth is by comparing it to a mass grave. Your whole argumentation is childish-wishfull thinking or an indoctrinated adult who just isn't very bright, saying you're arguing in bad faith would be putting it very kindly. That being said, this conversation is obviously over.

Johanx64 7mo ago

> I don't think you're discussing this in good faith. 134m^2 is well over 4 acres of land for a single person! 134m is a distance you can walk in a minute and a half. And you're already in somebody elses land. The only way you can present this as some sort of large plot of land is if you take some already overpopulated suburban area as a reference point where houses are lined up like boxes right next to another. And that's your only point of reference and you can't even fathom anything else. Subtracting the uninhabitable land from it, you basically get less than a mere hectare. Accusing others of acting in bad faith is game everyone can play. And it's very easy to do so since you're arguing how easily deserts, oceans or permafrost are habitable "if you really want to" (its just basic technology!) - when in truth it's achieved by pissing away one-time generational oil money to make it rain in the middle of the desert - no less. Party which will most likely wrap up with mass starvation (globally) when the pumps run dry (47 more years of this! give or take!) No sane person arguing in good faith would make arguments like this: "Well, planet isn't overpopulated, there's still a lot of room in the desert! oh, you can inhabit the oceans and permafrsot too! You could live on top of the Himalayas (you don't, but you could!) Oh, the sky is the limit! Oh, yes!" You aren't actually interested in truth, you're simply really, really want to and are programmed to multiply, and are working backwards (rationalizing) how actually planet isn't at all overpopulated or resource constrained, etc. That's what's actually happening. It's textbook.

somenameforme 7mo ago
Your ever-widening definition of "uninhabitable" includes vast areas of the world that are already habitated by millions, if not billions, of people. That is arguing in bad faith. And you're trying to argue that having more than a football field squared, for every person to live in - all by their selves, is a 'small parcel.' That is arguing in bad faith. And now you're adding child-like strawmen on top, which is once again - arguing in bad faith. And I still have no idea why you think oil running out has any role in your argument at all. I completely agree it'll run out eventually, possibly within our lifetimes. It's unlikely to lead to anything particularly catastrophic as once reserves do start declining (keep in mind proven reserves have been increasing faster than production for decades), the price of oil will steadily rise, and it'll create some solid economic incentives to comfortably transition to other energy sources.
- Johanx64 7mo ago
  Should Antarctica be counted as habitable then? It constitutes something to the tune of 9% of Earths land mass. And it's already inhabited by millions if not billions of people? Really? Is Sahara-Desert habitable also? Not the tiny parcels next to an Oasis, not people that live next to Nile. But actual-effin-desert habitable? And billions live there - right chock in the middle of desert? Interesting, very interesting indeed! > And I still have no idea why you think oil running out has any role in your argument at all. Oddly enough, your argument that earth isn't overpopulated, because there's still "a lot of room left in the desert, look at Saudis, UAE, Quatar!" hinges on Oil! Your proof that deserts are habitable is basically - taking Saudis, UAE, Qatar - as an example. Which is true, if you have infinite-money-hack, you abso-effin-lutely can man make it rain in the middle of desert (or middle of the ocean on a megayacht), ACs, green-patios, lambos, pools, artificial islands, giga-turbo-mega-towers and the most opulent displays of wealth! Except it's not infinite money hack at all. It's very much 47years of partying left type of finite. > And now you're adding child-like strawmen on top, which is once again - arguing in bad faith. Dude, your whole opening statement was how few people on earth there are or how large the earth is by comparing it to a mass grave. Your whole argumentation is childish-wishfull thinking or an indoctrinated adult who just isn't very bright, saying you're arguing in bad faith would be putting it very kindly. That being said, this conversation is obviously over.