• PlasmaDistortion@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sorry but this is a good thing. Earths population is too large for the resources available.

    • ChrisLicht@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      My instinct is that you’re right, but I wonder if what we’re really saying is that earth’s population is too large under the currently dominant socioeconomic and lifestyle constructs.

      • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        In the end, that’s more or less the same thing. But the question is, do we need more people? It’s also easier to be sustainable if we require less.

      • Skyline969@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, yes but also no. There’s just way too many people, period. Merely 60 years ago the human population was sitting around 3 billion people. Now it’s 8. Earth’s resources are finite, and at this rate of growth I would not be surprised if we ran out of non-renewables (with no renewable alternatives that scale as well as non-renewables) in our lifetime or our children’s.