• 00x0xx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    sonally, I like 6B as a good place to plateau. We’re probably already beyond the planet’s carrying capacity so nee

    With the current food growing technologies, we can handle 10 billion comfortable well. We will obviously not reach that number anytime soon. But we are on track to shrinking rapidly in many nations. That will destroy these nations.

    • elshandra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      I think that there are a lot of 8 billion people who would disagree with comfortably well. That number needs to be closer to two, to be sustainable with earth’s resources. At least that’s my understanding, not disappointed if wrong.

      • Soggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        The problem is not the resources, it’s the distribution. No political will to end global poverty, no profit in feeding the hungry.

        • elshandra@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Oh absolutely, people gonna keep being people. The truth seems to be that we don’t really know, but it’s likely somewhere between 4 and 16 from the little bit of reading up I just did.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Yeah, I tend to most notice reports of overfishing. Food from land sources is almost entirely farmed but we still get a lot of seafood from wild sources plus don’t have aquaculture anywhere near as advanced as agriculture: there’s not much we can do. Loss of a marine food source is a big deal, and we keep doing that with more species. One solution is fewer people

            A lot of the higher estimates assume we can overcome limitations like this with better management of resources, but that is against human nature and our current incentives. It’s not going to happen, even if lives depend on it

            • elshandra@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Let’s not forget water… And eventually, oxygen… But keep buying/selling those trinkets people, for the economy.

              And well, how much of these resource estimates leave enough for other life too, or does all other life just exist to feed us?..

    • 31337@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I doubt that. Current conventional food production is highly fossil fuel dependant (everything from fertilizer to processing to transport). Earth’s ariable land and top soil is decreasing quickly. Ecosystems are collapsing from the effects of agriculture and climate change. Most “advances” require more inputs and energy, which means more fossil fuel use, further accelerating resource degredation and climate change. I forget the statistic, but humans already control a significant proportion of Earth’s biomass. This chart from https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/17788/how-much-of-earths-biomass-is-affected-by-humans/ might be what I was thinking of: