Equally of course, if we use our mighty intellects to override our breeding instincts entirely then we’d arrive at the same extinction rather more quickly.
So you know, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Given our current birth rates in the western world I’m less worried about our breeding instincts than our inability to convince everyone that their children should live in a better world than them, apparently that’s the instinct that broke first.
We only settled on a “break even” point now that we’re many billions of people over capacity and society and the biosphere are collapsing. We needed to slow down a long time ago.
We could feed and clothe every single person on the planet right now with about one third of the resources that we use. We aren’t over capacity, we’re being murdered by the owners of about 100 companies across the globe that are responsible for 50% of global pollution.
Indefinitely. Overpopulation is a lie that corporations have fed you so you blame the average person for the repercussions of corporate greed. It’s the same propaganda campaign they used with littering so you don’t blame the companies dumping chemical waste in rivers, and the propaganda about jaywalking that shifted the blame from car companies for lethal pedestrian accidents that eventually saw roads being designed for cars first instead of people. Recycling programs started before we had a realistic way to recycle in order to get people used to the concept for when practical ways to recycle were actually developed, but recycling companies never bothered with that. They just shipped most stuff overseas to landfills in China.
The largest freight ships in the world each individually put out more emissions annually than every car on the planet combined. During the COVID lockdowns, vehicle used dropped dramatically across the globe - by something like 80%. And yet, global emissions barely budged during that time. Because the freighters and factories and all the other things that produce substantially more pollution were still running like normal. The US throws away 50% of the food it produces every year, and most of that waste is from companies and stores throwing away perfectly good food.
Corporations are the biggest factor in climate change and the death of every ecosystem on the planet. But they have reshaped the question and shifted the blame from themselves and the wealthy to the common man.
I’m not saying that we don’t have to change how we live, but while us using paper straws instead of plastic is a net good thing for the environment, even if every single person were to switch entirely, it would barely be a drop in the bucket compared to the excessive plastic waste generated by companies through single-use packaging. We need to question why companies are allowed to get away with it, not discuss how we’re going to uselessly cull the population so companies can keep doing what they’re doing.
Yeah, none of that addresses how we’re supposed to feed >8 billion people without modern logistics and farming backed by unsustainable practices and fossil fuel use. Especially with the weather becoming so unstable.
The fastest action that we could take that would have the largest effect is to cut out all the waste that companies get away with. Stuff like using water in California on cash crops unsuitable for the climate and on grass lawns and golf courses, or telling people in Texas to shower less and drink less water because they’re using it all in new AI data centers. Stopping practices like that will reduce strain on the system from multiple points by reducing energy and resource consumption both. Couple that with the ever increasing green energy use (solar/wind was cheaper than coal for the first time like 10 years back), better efficiency, and more effective materials and we’ll eventually make fossil fuels too expensive to use (legislation would also help big time there). There are sustainable farming practices that have been used for centuries in areas of little farmable land that have been replaced with harmful nitrogen fertilizers shipped and sold from countries like the US. Fast fashion and consumerism, loose regulations around hazardous waste disposal, the list goes on and on.
There’s massive amounts of waste in how our society works, and there’s tons we can do towards fixing the world without giving up and murdering half the world so the billionaires can keep destroying the rest of it.
We are not over capacity at all, this is a fucked up lie propagated by the rich western northern hemisphere people and the rich in general, the wealthiest 10% causes over 50% of the pollution.
We’re in a state of ecological overshoot, defined as a population consuming more resources than its environment can replenish. At its simplest, overshoot is a function of individual consumption x total population.
The Global Footprint Network calculates that we crossed this line in 1971, when both our global population (3.8B) and individual energy consumption (15.8kWh) were far lower than they are today (8.2B and 21.7kWh, respectively). Consider also that population is both a cause and effect of energy consumption.
the wealthiest 10% causes over 50% of the pollution.
You’re referring to CO2 emissions here (and it’s actually closer to 60%), but there are many other symptoms of overshoot. Habitat loss, species extinctions, overharvesting of resources, and other forms of pollution (industrial, particulate, trash) are huge problems in less wealthy nations. In South America, for example, we’ve seen a 95% loss of wildlife species over the past 50 years. The planetary boundaries framework is helpful for looking at overshoot more holistically, instead of focusing solely on emissions (although that’s important too).
In wealthy nations, populations are declining but consumption is unsustainable. In poorer nations, individual consumption is low but population growth is unsustainable. Only by reducing both do we have a hope of living equitably on this planet.
Wealthy nations decreasing consumption will have a knock on effect on habitat loss in South America for example, where a shit ton of rainforest is being killed to make pastures for beef that’s exported.
Poorer nation’s peak population estimates are declining every year, as life gets better and child mortality falls population growth lowers everywhere (another racist shit that’s spreading that poor nations are reproducing too much, btw).
Energy consumption is more or less useless measure with the rapid rise of renewables, although there are also efforts there to lower that everywhere.
Poorer nation’s peak population estimates are declining every year, as life gets better and child mortality falls population growth lowers everywhere
Yes, that’s a good thing.
(another racist shit that’s spreading that poor nations are reproducing too much, btw).
Race doesn’t enter into it. If we accept that we crossed into overshoot over 50 years ago, then any birth rate above replacement is ultimately unsustainable.
Energy consumption is more or less useless measure with the rapid rise of renewables, although there are also efforts there to lower that everywhere.
Energy consumption is the measure. It’s a direct reflection of the degree to which our lifestyles impact our environment. People seem to have this idea that the only real issue with industrial civilization is that it runs primarily on a fuel that destabilizes our atmosphere, and that if we could simply transition away from this fuel (to solar/wind/nuclear/fusion) we’d be on our way to utopia.
But let’s consider what we direct all that energy towards: first, we use it to harvest massive amounts of natural resources, degrading and destroying the environment in the process. (Mining, logging, farming, fishing, etc.) We then transform those natural resources into towns and cities, which pave over and fragment the natural environment in which they’re built. We transform them into consumer goods (cars, electronics, plastics, clothing, etc.), the vast majority of which end up as waste in less than a decade. We transform them into all manner of industrial chemicals, many of which end up becoming individual ecological disasters of their own.
Transitioning to a “clean” form of energy does nothing to address what we do with it. Living sustainably requires drastically downscaling our total ecological footprint.
Equally of course, if we use our mighty intellects to override our breeding instincts entirely then we’d arrive at the same extinction rather more quickly.
So you know, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Given our current birth rates in the western world I’m less worried about our breeding instincts than our inability to convince everyone that their children should live in a better world than them, apparently that’s the instinct that broke first.
Not really. I’m sure our mighty intellects could have settled on a birth rate somewhere between 25 and 0. There are a lot of numbers in between.
I mean… the developed world has settled on slightly below break even (or very below break even in a few cases). So yes, that did happen
We only settled on a “break even” point now that we’re many billions of people over capacity and society and the biosphere are collapsing. We needed to slow down a long time ago.
We could feed and clothe every single person on the planet right now with about one third of the resources that we use. We aren’t over capacity, we’re being murdered by the owners of about 100 companies across the globe that are responsible for 50% of global pollution.
For how long? The current output is unsustainable. Respectfully, you’re not seeing the whole picture.
Indefinitely. Overpopulation is a lie that corporations have fed you so you blame the average person for the repercussions of corporate greed. It’s the same propaganda campaign they used with littering so you don’t blame the companies dumping chemical waste in rivers, and the propaganda about jaywalking that shifted the blame from car companies for lethal pedestrian accidents that eventually saw roads being designed for cars first instead of people. Recycling programs started before we had a realistic way to recycle in order to get people used to the concept for when practical ways to recycle were actually developed, but recycling companies never bothered with that. They just shipped most stuff overseas to landfills in China.
The largest freight ships in the world each individually put out more emissions annually than every car on the planet combined. During the COVID lockdowns, vehicle used dropped dramatically across the globe - by something like 80%. And yet, global emissions barely budged during that time. Because the freighters and factories and all the other things that produce substantially more pollution were still running like normal. The US throws away 50% of the food it produces every year, and most of that waste is from companies and stores throwing away perfectly good food.
Corporations are the biggest factor in climate change and the death of every ecosystem on the planet. But they have reshaped the question and shifted the blame from themselves and the wealthy to the common man.
I’m not saying that we don’t have to change how we live, but while us using paper straws instead of plastic is a net good thing for the environment, even if every single person were to switch entirely, it would barely be a drop in the bucket compared to the excessive plastic waste generated by companies through single-use packaging. We need to question why companies are allowed to get away with it, not discuss how we’re going to uselessly cull the population so companies can keep doing what they’re doing.
Yeah, none of that addresses how we’re supposed to feed >8 billion people without modern logistics and farming backed by unsustainable practices and fossil fuel use. Especially with the weather becoming so unstable.
The fastest action that we could take that would have the largest effect is to cut out all the waste that companies get away with. Stuff like using water in California on cash crops unsuitable for the climate and on grass lawns and golf courses, or telling people in Texas to shower less and drink less water because they’re using it all in new AI data centers. Stopping practices like that will reduce strain on the system from multiple points by reducing energy and resource consumption both. Couple that with the ever increasing green energy use (solar/wind was cheaper than coal for the first time like 10 years back), better efficiency, and more effective materials and we’ll eventually make fossil fuels too expensive to use (legislation would also help big time there). There are sustainable farming practices that have been used for centuries in areas of little farmable land that have been replaced with harmful nitrogen fertilizers shipped and sold from countries like the US. Fast fashion and consumerism, loose regulations around hazardous waste disposal, the list goes on and on.
There’s massive amounts of waste in how our society works, and there’s tons we can do towards fixing the world without giving up and murdering half the world so the billionaires can keep destroying the rest of it.
We are not over capacity at all, this is a fucked up lie propagated by the rich western northern hemisphere people and the rich in general, the wealthiest 10% causes over 50% of the pollution.
That includes lots of Americans and Europeans.
Here is an excellent episode from the climate deniers playbook podcast about this topic. https://pod.link/1694759084/episode/Z2lkOi8vYXJ0MTktZXBpc29kZS1sb2NhdG9yL1YwL3I3WDh5SjhNY3RKY1hab2Rva09pRUxiR0NZYzFoNWsyT3gzcE0wZm5sUk0
We’re in a state of ecological overshoot, defined as a population consuming more resources than its environment can replenish. At its simplest, overshoot is a function of individual consumption x total population.
The Global Footprint Network calculates that we crossed this line in 1971, when both our global population (3.8B) and individual energy consumption (15.8kWh) were far lower than they are today (8.2B and 21.7kWh, respectively). Consider also that population is both a cause and effect of energy consumption.
You’re referring to CO2 emissions here (and it’s actually closer to 60%), but there are many other symptoms of overshoot. Habitat loss, species extinctions, overharvesting of resources, and other forms of pollution (industrial, particulate, trash) are huge problems in less wealthy nations. In South America, for example, we’ve seen a 95% loss of wildlife species over the past 50 years. The planetary boundaries framework is helpful for looking at overshoot more holistically, instead of focusing solely on emissions (although that’s important too).
In wealthy nations, populations are declining but consumption is unsustainable. In poorer nations, individual consumption is low but population growth is unsustainable. Only by reducing both do we have a hope of living equitably on this planet.
Wealthy nations decreasing consumption will have a knock on effect on habitat loss in South America for example, where a shit ton of rainforest is being killed to make pastures for beef that’s exported.
Poorer nation’s peak population estimates are declining every year, as life gets better and child mortality falls population growth lowers everywhere (another racist shit that’s spreading that poor nations are reproducing too much, btw).
Energy consumption is more or less useless measure with the rapid rise of renewables, although there are also efforts there to lower that everywhere.
Yes, that’s a good thing.
Race doesn’t enter into it. If we accept that we crossed into overshoot over 50 years ago, then any birth rate above replacement is ultimately unsustainable.
Energy consumption is the measure. It’s a direct reflection of the degree to which our lifestyles impact our environment. People seem to have this idea that the only real issue with industrial civilization is that it runs primarily on a fuel that destabilizes our atmosphere, and that if we could simply transition away from this fuel (to solar/wind/nuclear/fusion) we’d be on our way to utopia.
But let’s consider what we direct all that energy towards: first, we use it to harvest massive amounts of natural resources, degrading and destroying the environment in the process. (Mining, logging, farming, fishing, etc.) We then transform those natural resources into towns and cities, which pave over and fragment the natural environment in which they’re built. We transform them into consumer goods (cars, electronics, plastics, clothing, etc.), the vast majority of which end up as waste in less than a decade. We transform them into all manner of industrial chemicals, many of which end up becoming individual ecological disasters of their own.
Transitioning to a “clean” form of energy does nothing to address what we do with it. Living sustainably requires drastically downscaling our total ecological footprint.