• TremblingTelepath@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Bullshit. Overpopulation is a neocolonialist myth about why developed countries get to keep doing the same thing and mid&low-income countries have to cut emissions while somehow also fulfilling their debt obligations to the high income countries by being their slaves.

    The overconsumption of high income countries is mainly driven by their own wealth inequality & the sheer greed of every industry not population either.

    • eleitl@lemmy.mlOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You don’t understand ecosystem carrying capacity overshoot. For a gentle introduction, pick up Catton’s book. You can download it from the usual sites.

    • halcyondays@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      The industrial agriculture that supports our current population is entirely dependent on fossil fuels.

      At some point humanity is going to have to face life without fossil fuels, whether that be by a far too late attempt at curbing climate change, or due to climate change/water shortage related reductions in population that reduce production, or just due to dwindling EROI as we have to drill in more difficult places to keep the oil pumping.

      A study in the research journal Nature Geosciences concluded that fertilizer made from synthetic nitrogen and ammonia was responsible for feeding more than 50 percent of the global population in 2008 (Kinder Morgan, 2020).

      Here’s that study: https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/wps/cato/0028024/f_0028024_22818.pdf

      Seems pretty clear that if the use of a finite resource is the only way we can sustain the population - we’re overpopulated. Not to mention that said finite resource is also actively killing us and making agriculture more difficult due to extreme weather.

      • xapr@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You have a reasonable argument, but then the solution should be to stop all fossil fuel consumption except for the production of life-sustaining products, like food.

        According to this link, food production accounts for only 26% of total carbon output. There we go, problem solved. We can cut total carbon output by 74% and still produce the same amount of food.

        • halcyondays@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I didn’t say there was a solution. Stopping fossil fuels, along with plummeting quality of life, means less global dimming, which would accelerate our impending BOE, and the loss of albedo from that would further accelerate warming. We’re way past any possibility of a solution.

          • xapr@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I wasn’t even aware of those details, even though I share the feeling that we’re past any possibility of a solution. I want to believe that there is a chance and not be a doomer and give up, but it’s hard. I hope we’re wrong. :(

          • TremblingTelepath@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Hahahahaha oh man you are just mentally imprisoning yourself for no reason

            Resource consumption is not a linear function of population you complete dunderhead 🤣

    • maketotaldestr0i@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your argument that overconsumption is the culprit but not population doesn’t make sense when the equation is (Population X Consumption)= Environmental impact.

      There is no consumption without the population.

      And virtually all the published everything about overpopulation is fully onboard that first world consumption needs to come down and 3rd world needs to go up to be fair.

      Why does everyone think talking about overpopulation means you are hitler looking for lebensraum?

      • xapr@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why does everyone think talking about overpopulation means you are hitler looking for lebensraum?

        Because that’s exactly what it sounds like the path that people are alluding to when they mention overpopulation before or especially without overconsumption. I used to think that overpopulation was the problem too, but I have come to my senses.

    • xapr@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I completely agree.

      For those disagreeing, let’s use CO2 emissions as a proxy for resource consumption. CO2 emissions per capita per year is 38.2 metric tons in Qatar, while it’s 0.1 metric tons in Uganda (as of 2018 - source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita). That means one person in Qatar (pop: 2.8 million) consumes as many resources as 382 people in Uganda (pop: 48 million). By the way, for the US, that figure on the same list is 16.1 metric tons, so one person in the US consumes as much as 161 people in Uganda (pop: 333 million).

      How could anyone with a straight face say that “overpopulation” is the problem? That’s a straight up genocidal way to think about the issue of resource overshoot.