Not saying this about you specifically cause the other person did it too but I miss when the internet sourced claims instead of just being like “no that’s wrong” with zero elaboration or evidence. Very few people are convinced by “nah not true” and nothing else
Well, you are right. And I agree. Although in my defence, he made the initial claim without further evidence.
Anywho, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), an agency operating under the UN, has done plenty of research and published papers about this.
The conundrum lies in that while we need more effective food production, we also want everything to be grown naturally (without fertilizer and/or free range livestock etc.), which is ineffective.
We need more land for crops and animals to feed more people, but we also need more space to house those same people, meanwhile we cannot continue deforestation.
On top of those, soil needs time to replenish all the nutrients. If it’s not given that opportunity, it WILL become permanently unusable.
There’s simply too many conflicting wants and needs that are strictly incompatible.
this is the reality no one wants to admit because it points out a major flaw in the human psyche… that is, the ability to lack empathy by distance. the farther away people are, the less we care about them.
this is obvious is every facet of our daily existence, and is provable by the lack of dense conservative centers and how easily swayed those brought physically close to those remote entities (mentally or physically) become empathetic.
humans suck, and we are the cause of resources not going where they are needed.
Infinite growth is inherently incompatible with life. It does not work. The biosphere is under immense pressure already. Humanity extinct 4 species every day and has killed off 90% of wild animals in the last 100 years. Nature is the greatest repository of knowledge that we have. It is invaluable to our science, though we treat it as expendable. It’s like burning all libraries. We are simply using too much land in an effort to support a shitty economical model that is based on population growth, forever. This is the kind of problem that humanity has proven to be ineffectual at solving. Long term and noone will take action unless it blows up in their faces, personally, right now. Let the next generation deal with it. That is what they said in the 50s and that is what they will say in 10 years too. The damage done to the biosphere is practically permanent. Once an animal or plant is extinct, it is gone. Once enough of them is gone, the planet no longer supports complex life.
Nah there’s plenty of resources to go around. Rampant consumerism is the problem.
There’s not plenty of resources to go around.
I think they’re trying to say there would be if it wasn’t for consumerism.
Yes, but there wouldn’t.
Not saying this about you specifically cause the other person did it too but I miss when the internet sourced claims instead of just being like “no that’s wrong” with zero elaboration or evidence. Very few people are convinced by “nah not true” and nothing else
Well, you are right. And I agree. Although in my defence, he made the initial claim without further evidence.
Anywho, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), an agency operating under the UN, has done plenty of research and published papers about this.
The conundrum lies in that while we need more effective food production, we also want everything to be grown naturally (without fertilizer and/or free range livestock etc.), which is ineffective.
We need more land for crops and animals to feed more people, but we also need more space to house those same people, meanwhile we cannot continue deforestation.
On top of those, soil needs time to replenish all the nutrients. If it’s not given that opportunity, it WILL become permanently unusable.
There’s simply too many conflicting wants and needs that are strictly incompatible.
So are you suggesting that there would be enough resources to go around if we didn’t want organic food and huge single-family houses for homes?
That’s not at all what they said.
I didn’t say they said that. I asked if they were suggesting it.
We currently produce more than enough food and clothes for every person on this planet and could easily house them all.
The problem is that because of capitalism we can’t get what everyone needs to them because it might hurt someone’s profits.
Yes, but even if we used the resources better, we would still come to a limit, just later. Eternal population growth is nonsense.
With proper logistics that becomes less of a problem when coupled with universal education and healthcare.
We have also destroyed most of the wild ecosystems of the world to grow that food.
But we can grow much more environmentally friendly foods if we choose to.
The way we do things is not the only or even close to the best way.
There’s still a limit. The Earth cannot support infinite humans.
this is the reality no one wants to admit because it points out a major flaw in the human psyche… that is, the ability to lack empathy by distance. the farther away people are, the less we care about them.
this is obvious is every facet of our daily existence, and is provable by the lack of dense conservative centers and how easily swayed those brought physically close to those remote entities (mentally or physically) become empathetic.
humans suck, and we are the cause of resources not going where they are needed.
Infinite growth is inherently incompatible with life. It does not work. The biosphere is under immense pressure already. Humanity extinct 4 species every day and has killed off 90% of wild animals in the last 100 years. Nature is the greatest repository of knowledge that we have. It is invaluable to our science, though we treat it as expendable. It’s like burning all libraries. We are simply using too much land in an effort to support a shitty economical model that is based on population growth, forever. This is the kind of problem that humanity has proven to be ineffectual at solving. Long term and noone will take action unless it blows up in their faces, personally, right now. Let the next generation deal with it. That is what they said in the 50s and that is what they will say in 10 years too. The damage done to the biosphere is practically permanent. Once an animal or plant is extinct, it is gone. Once enough of them is gone, the planet no longer supports complex life.
We don’t need to be using resources the way we do. It’s again a result of consumerism.
We could easily support a way bigger population if we used resources better.
If we stopped worrying about money so much science would easily be able to fix many of these problems.
That’s lime saying lions don’t have to eat animals and chickens don’t have to eat shit.
We use a huge amount of resources shipping millions of tonnes of plastic toys around the world.
That is not a natural thing that we have to do to live. It’s a choice.