At what point does Comfort cross Population?
Posted by StreicherG@reddit | collapse | View on Reddit | 44 comments
Musing to myself and wanted to see what you guys think:
Not eating meat save resources. Not driving or using planes saves resources. You can save a lot of resources by living in one room homes. Electricity uses resources.
We are often called apon to cut out meat, walk instead of drive, etc. If every human lived in a woven grass hut and grew their own food, we could save the world.
Conversely, if we had a lot less people, we wouldn’t have to do anything. Less than a million humans all over the Earth? Go Wild. We could drive SUVs 24/7, dropkick sea turtles, and go on Panda hunts. There’d be so few of us we wouldn’t have much of an impact on nature.
So my question is: what do you guys think would be the “perfect” way to save the world? A more miserable austere existence for many people, or a more lavish existence for a much smaller population?
Notes:
1: Ultra rich people suck and do not factor in my idea, there’s “good standard of living” and then there’s “I need a yacht to carry my other yacht”
2: I’m kinda drunk and thinking deep thoughts.
- I’m not advocating to kill off people. That’s pretty established to be a bad thing.
darthbradberry@reddit
until we rid ourselves of the epstein ruling class it doesn't matter what we do.
Proper_Geologist9026@reddit
It doesn't have to be and won't be binary.
We need less people taking less shit.
Strong education for women and access to contraceptives. Target the social programs that promote equity and dampen population growth as quickly as possible.
And then you just pair that with rational reduction in consumption. Low meat diets. Public / active transport become the main modes of movement, personal transport becomes an occasional activity. Realistically we can cut out a pretty substantial chunk of household consumption without people even really noticing. Maybe some minor inconveniences but so much of what we buy is just meaningless junk we throw away having barely used anyway.
Tldr. Stop arguing over which lever to pull and pull all three. I = PAT.
Impact = Population x Affluence x Technological Efficiency.
spacestationkru@reddit
I just keep going back to how during the COVID lockdowns, the dust and smog started settling everywhere around the world and it was generally a lot cleaner and more peaceful outside. I have never seen a better argument to support Thanos in his mission to snap half of us out of existence.
RandomBoomer@reddit
I was born in the 1950s. There were 2.5 billion people in the world then, far less than the half that Thanos removed.
During my lifetime the human population has more than tripled. It's mind boggling.
Less_Subtle_Approach@reddit
I don't see the point of the thought experiment since we will be doing neither. Why not just say the perfect way to save the world is to wave a magic wand and modify humans to stop consuming and reproducing endlessly? The problem is behavioral however you slice it, may as well admit we need a way to fundamentally alter the behavior on a species level.
EnlightenedSinTryst@reddit
Behaviour flows probabilistically from existing conditions, not really “fundamentally altering” us
Less_Subtle_Approach@reddit
Humans change their conditions. That's why we have 8 billion instead of 200 million. Unless people are going to be kept in zoos, we need a human that's substantially more willing to sacrifice their own material conditions for the benefit of others, including future humans.
RandomBoomer@reddit
Humans -- fully human homo sapiens -- have been around for some 300,000 years, but it's only in the last 5-10,000 years that our behavior changed dramatically, and only in the last few hundred years that this cumulatively aggregated behavior threatened the entire world.
Why the enormous delay? Conditions changed. We didn't change them; we didn't create the interglacial warming period. It changed us.
Those conditions are about to change again, and we may be to blame, but we're no less vulnerable to the effect they will have on our ephemeral civilizations.
Climate giveth, and climate taketh away.
EnlightenedSinTryst@reddit
What I’m saying is, the best way to get that human is to make that path desirable rather than depending on the lever of individual willpower.
GardenScared8153@reddit
Let's just agree that for you to have a luxury SUV, you'd need a large population of slaves or as capitalist call it a reserve pool of labor to mine all the materials and build that SUV at a cheap enough price so you can afford an SUV.
Less than a million humans would still not give you the right to drop kick sea turtles or go on Panda Hunts, eventually there will be intergalactic bounty hunters after you and you get kicked from the material world to the more demonic realms if you killed too many pandas for fun. Our biggest problem is we don't understand our role/place on this planet.
You can have comfort and a large population as long as that population is within the land's carrying capacity and the materials they use are somewhat renewable and don't cause too much environmental damage to extract and use. If we had better technology quality, we were properly leveraging nature with agriculture to do the least amount of labor, and we were not enslaved by capitalism/corporations in absolutely bullshit jobs and pursuing very fast growth for the sake of it then the earth would have been a utopia. All and all it's all about balance/moderation, it's a balancing act. We don't need to be hunter gatherers but we also don't need to lay waste to our planet to make shareholders rich, and we need the right technology.
The problem starts with wasteful luxury at the expense of the environment. Sure, a large population would need to make concessions in order not to wreck its environment and live within the environment's carrying capacity.
You are failing to highlight the biggest problems facing us
The biggest problems with technology on this planet is basically technology suppression for profits and control, built in Obsolescence of goods, suppression of knowledge, the profit motive which eliminates environmental stewardship as a cost, control over all food and goods production by a few who don't have our best interest at heart. The cabal driving this planet to oblivion are absolute dogs who should not be driving.
HomoExtinctisus@reddit
Even Stone Age technology was enough to extinct most megafauna.
Free_Broccoli_1174@reddit
What? That's a new one on me. I'm sure there was some big mitigating factors in megafauna demise. Stone age tech was extremely rare and ineffective.
HomoExtinctisus@reddit
Oh yeah so ineffective.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/ancient-mammoth-bone-circle-reveals-how-ice-age-humans-lived
Well-knapped Obsidian blades are sharper than surgical steel.
We've even extincted a number of marine megafauna as well Stone Age tech so good.
Free_Broccoli_1174@reddit
It's not about sharpness. How did mega-fauna compare with humans numbers/distribution wise? I have a hard time believing a few hundred thousand humans extincted an entire class of animals in the days before industrial Capitalism. I think something else was going on.
HomoExtinctisus@reddit
Ok what are comments about Stone Age tech ineffectiveness about then? Can you articulate that?
It varied over time and place. Like this but steeper when limited to megafauna alone.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/07/mm-7-ecological-nosedive/ Everyone's entitled to their own opinions but the fact is the megafauna who went extinct had survived many other climate cycles when humans.
Can you articulate a rational reason why you have this vague feeling?
Free_Broccoli_1174@reddit
I just don't think a handful of humans using obsidian tipped spears would be the major reason for megafaunal extinction events. I'm betting on climate upheaval as a major factor with the rise of humans co-incident but not chiefly responsible.
squeezemachine@reddit
It has been very well known for decades. Read Paul Shepard’s Tender Carnivore for commentary. Beautiful book.
HappyCamperDancer@reddit
It has been researched and published, with evidence on like 6 continents that human extincted mega-fauna anywhere from 10,000 years to 50,000 years ago, depending on the continent and population of people.
I will NOT research and cite sourses of that research and publications for you.
HappyCamperDancer@reddit
It has been researched and published, with evidence on like 6 continents that human extincted mega-fauna anywhere from 10,000 years to 50,000 years ago, depending on the continent and population of people.
I will NOT research and cite sourses of that research and publications for you.
Alex5173@reddit
To be fair, they didn't go extinct simply because the Stone Age technology existed; we actively used it to hunt them. And also the degree to which we were responsible for said extinctions is debated
HomoExtinctisus@reddit
To be fair, there's a lot of debate on the existence of climate change but that doesn't mean we should both sides a disagreement when only one side has overwhelming evidence in its favour.
StreicherG@reddit (OP)
True enough! But if we had stayed as roaming Hunter/gatherers would we still be better off currently in terms of nature?
HomoExtinctisus@reddit
Some version of I = P × A × T would need to be implemented to drive us below ecological overshoot and some mechanism to keep us there if we survive the fall. What
some mechanismcould be is beyond my imagination.squeezemachine@reddit
If we would have halted consumption to 1970’s Europe level and held a steady population we may have made it. I don’t have exact stats handy but basically would mean one car per 10 people, a small refrigerator, a small television, maybe one or two international trips per lifetime with more regional train trips instead, public transportation, more regional diet, lower in meat and less processed foods, one or two good winter coats, four or five pairs of shoes and 10 to 12 pairs of pants shirts, etc.
BTRCguy@reddit
Extending this demonstrates the core problem. If I break a leg, there are not too many woven grass X-ray machines and not driving makes it problematic to get to the hospital as well.
Technology is certainly convenient, but a great deal of that convenience extends our lifespan and/or makes that lifespan healthier. Think of the huge amount of infrastructure that goes into making the modern vaccines that every kid should get. Or things like rabies shots or insulin. Or how many billions of people would need to be subtracted from the population in order to be sustainable without mechanized agriculture (farm machinery, fertilizer, transport networks, ubiquitous electricity, etc.).
And while there might be a lot of agreement that we would be better off with fewer people on the planet, no one wants to be part of the group deleted to make this happen. They do not want it for themselves, their children, their grandchildren and most of the time not for their country, their religion or other belief system, because that would mean those other guys they don't like would gain an advantage.
Multiply this by 8 billion people and you quickly end up with 9, 10 or more billion...
Crafty_Original_7349@reddit
Get rid of western medicine and let the surplus population self regulate.
TryptaMagiciaN@reddit
You cannot save the world. That requires collective action and even then we aren't saving it. Long after we check out it will be consumed by the sun.
The only thing being saved is ourselves and our perspectives; the integrity of our character
Instead of wondering which is better, live the one that brings you peace. And if your peace comes at the expense of another, then stop and sort it out.
If we all did that, we could probably have 8 billion people and SUVs, but it take a great deal of self-awareness that we largely lack due to current circumstance.
Either way, you must grow the tree yourself if youbwant shade. Build it and they will come type mentality.
MockeryAndDisdain@reddit
I would eat a panda.
Elegant_Schedule4250@reddit
Lets have panda for be
Elegant_Schedule4250@reddit
Breakfast.
MockeryAndDisdain@reddit
Panda steaks! Panda tacos! Panda stew, with leeks, and turnips, and parsnips, and crimini mushrooms!
Elegant_Schedule4250@reddit
Panda shish kebab! Panda sausage! Panda omelette! Panda milkshake! Panda fries! Panda Ceasar Salad with panda potatoes! deep fried panda sticks! Stuffed Panda! Pickled Panda! Mashed Panda!
Thick-Ad5738@reddit
Posadism is the answer! (The nuclear war part, not the aliens part)
FunFlatworm6443@reddit
Nothing saves more resources than not having kids, well other turning yourself off that is.
Shoddy-Childhood-511@reddit
Yes, if quantified & caveats correctly: For almost any individual anywhere, the single largest positive ecological and climate impact they could personally have would not having kids.
Yet, you or I minimising meat or biking instead of driving could easily save more than someone in another country not having kids.
CaptainBathrobe@reddit
An austere existence doesn't necessarily have to be a miserable one. It's a long way between "drive SUVs 24/7" and "live in grass huts." I would think there's a place in between the two points that would be a lot more sustainable than what we have now but without as much consumerism, and it could well be a more satisfying existence.
BassoeG@reddit
They weight three hundred plus pounds. I don't think this is a realistic option even if they weren't endangered or humans were so rare that our spontaneous attacks against them weren't a threat to their species as a whole.
BayesianBits@reddit
A pound of ground beef costs more than minimum wage now. It's only gonna get worse with the energy and fertilizer situation.
PrairieFire_withwind@reddit
Implicit in this argument is that comfort equals happiness. And it does not.
There are many peoples who have been both happy and unhappy while being both rich and poor af.
In other words, you meed to discuss the implicit assumption of comfort = a good that is worth taking life from other parts of the ecosystem.
Best to think on that
Own-Medium5232@reddit
If torturing animals is your idea of a good time, please see a shrink, my guy.
Free_Broccoli_1174@reddit
Abolish the MIL. Our imperialist Military is never factored into the equation and does far far more damage than individual choices do. Accomplish this then worry about your plastic bags, straws, and non-grass huts. Also, go see https://earthsgreatestenemy.com/
PatrolMan2129@reddit
You can have a spectrum of various luxury and comfort levels at different populations levels.
Thing is, humanity is going for max comfort at maximum population level. Population growth is finally slowing, but only because having kids cuts into convenience.... however it won't really come fast enough.
It's not really a fault of humanity.... any species without predators and constraints eventually grows out of bounds like this. Only difference is as a species we think we're too smart to fall in the same trap.
It might be unbearable, but there just might not be an "answer". People will be sold techno-hopium that will eventually run dry since it also has to operate under some type of return for effort expended (EROEI).
Btw, I tell people to eat go without meat and animal product just for the sheer health and energy benefits (but one must eat actual food, not hyper processed). Not under any delusion that people will adopt it en mass and save the world. Most won't. There's still payoff for bucking the trend and doing so. Saving the earth is just a hypothetical side benefit at this point.
Shoddy-Childhood-511@reddit
1970s maybe? 1950s?
If you want materialist, then an argument could be made for peak oil availability to ordinary people, so before the first Iran oil crisis in 1951.
You can observe oil availability in the predistribution aka effective socialism vs redistribution aka ineffective captured socailism metric btw.
https://www.metafilter.com/206236/Predistribution-vs-redistribution
We'd the smallpox eradication fight for hundreds of years, but the started the final "kill it everywhere" push in 1966, and finished 10 years later, so that's another peak indicator.
Corey Bradshaw has wonderful insights on population:
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/136-corey-bradshaw
StreicherG@reddit (OP)
Like the science stuff you provided! I will be reading these in more depth when my Corona wears off