Comment on [deleted]

• umbrella@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  and we could already make more food and shelter than we need.

  source
• RunawayFixer@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  To sustain the current amount of humans, we are using unsustainable methods. That makes us unsustainable as well.

  Some estimates from Wikipedia: “Climate change, excess nutrient loading (particularly nitrogen and phosphorus), increased ocean acidity, rapid biodiversity loss, and other global trends suggest humanity is causing global ecological degradation and threatening ecosystem services that human societies depend on.[9][10][11] Because these environmental impacts are all directly related to human numbers, recent estimates of a sustainable human population often suggest substantially lower figures, between 2 and 4 billion.[12][13][14] Paul R. Ehrlich stated in 2018 that the optimum population is between 1.5 and 2 billion.[15] Geographer Chris Tucker estimates that 3 billion is a sustainable number, provided human societies rapidly deploy less harmful technologies and best management practices.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_population

  source

  • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Point being, not only is it an issue that we can do nothing about, it’s also an issue that is already going away by itself. So the only thing really worth discussing at this time is how to deal with the fallout of that trend

    source

    • RunawayFixer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      It’s not going away any time soon. There’s currently 2 to 3 times as many humans as what would be long term sustainable with the way that we live. That means that it’s going to be a problem for at least many decades, but more likely a few centuries. It’s definitely not yesteryears problem. And sustainability should always remain a concern, in everything that we do. Many countries (not the USA obviously) are already taking steps to be more sustainable, but it’s baby steps compared to what is needed.

      source