You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
4 points
*

Bullshit. Overpopulation is a neocolonialist myth about why developed countries get to keep doing the same thing and mid&low-income countries have to cut emissions while somehow also fulfilling their debt obligations to the high income countries by being their slaves.

The overconsumption of high income countries is mainly driven by their own wealth inequality & the sheer greed of every industry not population either.

permalink
report
reply
8 points

You don’t understand ecosystem carrying capacity overshoot. For a gentle introduction, pick up Catton’s book. You can download it from the usual sites.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

Resource consumption is not a linear function of population you malthusian pseudointellectual garbage. I know more than you

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Be nice. First and only warning.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

The industrial agriculture that supports our current population is entirely dependent on fossil fuels.

At some point humanity is going to have to face life without fossil fuels, whether that be by a far too late attempt at curbing climate change, or due to climate change/water shortage related reductions in population that reduce production, or just due to dwindling EROI as we have to drill in more difficult places to keep the oil pumping.

A study in the research journal Nature Geosciences concluded that fertilizer made from synthetic nitrogen and ammonia was responsible for feeding more than 50 percent of the global population in 2008 (Kinder Morgan, 2020).

Here’s that study: https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/wps/cato/0028024/f_0028024_22818.pdf

Seems pretty clear that if the use of a finite resource is the only way we can sustain the population - we’re overpopulated. Not to mention that said finite resource is also actively killing us and making agriculture more difficult due to extreme weather.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

You have a reasonable argument, but then the solution should be to stop all fossil fuel consumption except for the production of life-sustaining products, like food.

According to this link, food production accounts for only 26% of total carbon output. There we go, problem solved. We can cut total carbon output by 74% and still produce the same amount of food.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

I didn’t say there was a solution. Stopping fossil fuels, along with plummeting quality of life, means less global dimming, which would accelerate our impending BOE, and the loss of albedo from that would further accelerate warming. We’re way past any possibility of a solution.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

Resource consumption is not a linear function of population you complete dunderhead 🤣

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Your argument that overconsumption is the culprit but not population doesn’t make sense when the equation is (Population X Consumption)= Environmental impact.

There is no consumption without the population.

And virtually all the published everything about overpopulation is fully onboard that first world consumption needs to come down and 3rd world needs to go up to be fair.

Why does everyone think talking about overpopulation means you are hitler looking for lebensraum?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Why does everyone think talking about overpopulation means you are hitler looking for lebensraum?

Because that’s exactly what it sounds like the path that people are alluding to when they mention overpopulation before or especially without overconsumption. I used to think that overpopulation was the problem too, but I have come to my senses.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

yeah but there is no consumption without population. Pop*consumption= environmental impact.

Talking about population doesn’t imply ignoring consumption as the best target for mitigating the problem. But the market will do that as prices rise and kick more population out of the “consumption is viable” cohort. unfortunately the market starts with the poorest and least consuming

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

You deliberately misunderstood what I said lol

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I completely agree.

For those disagreeing, let’s use CO2 emissions as a proxy for resource consumption. CO2 emissions per capita per year is 38.2 metric tons in Qatar, while it’s 0.1 metric tons in Uganda (as of 2018 - source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita). That means one person in Qatar (pop: 2.8 million) consumes as many resources as 382 people in Uganda (pop: 48 million). By the way, for the US, that figure on the same list is 16.1 metric tons, so one person in the US consumes as much as 161 people in Uganda (pop: 333 million).

How could anyone with a straight face say that “overpopulation” is the problem? That’s a straight up genocidal way to think about the issue of resource overshoot.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

They don’t care about real numbers. They want the numbers they made up

permalink
report
parent
reply

Collapse

!collapse@lemmy.ml

Create post

We have moved to https://lemm.ee/c/collapse – please adjust your subscriptions

This is the place for discussing the potential collapse of modern civilization and the environment.


Collapse, in this context, refers to the significant loss of an established level or complexity towards a much simpler state. It can occur differently within many areas, orderly or chaotically, and be willing or unwilling. It does not necessarily imply human extinction or a singular, global event. Although, the longer the duration, the more it resembles a ‘decline’ instead of collapse.


RULES

1 - Remember the human

2 - Link posts should come from a reputable source

3 - All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith.

4 - No low effort posts.


Related lemmys:

Community stats

  • 1

    Monthly active users

  • 728

    Posts

  • 2.1K

    Comments