That’s no different line of reasoning if you said billionaires don’t have too much money they are just bad a resource dispersal because we’ve built our society to reward greed and individualism. Which I wholly reject as well.
You aren’t wrong that we need to fix a lot of things such as our management or resources and waste products, and that greed and individualism are things we need to curtail, but just from water and food production going into the climate change we already have experienced, the global population is much worse off than it would be if we worked to reduce the global population by at least 1/3rd. (Under about 6.5 billion a d 4.9 being maximally ideal iirc)
That’s just how the data wizards worked things out. That number is not a static number either. If magically we woke up tomorrow and all of the systemic problems were suddenly functioning in the best possible technical capability we have right now, the global population could support about 18-20 billion if they were spread out maximally.
But that’s just not the reality we live in. We have so much waste both in usable things like food waste, and garbage from end of the line material(mostly plastic
That’s the conclusion I’ve arrived at after looking into this topic multiple multiple times. (I started looking at it seriously when countries began pulling out of the Kyoto Accords) I could be mistaken about some of the information I hold to be true, and if I am I will need to readjust my perspective on this, but I’m not going to do that with you. I dont have the patience or grace to argue with people who want to ignore reality.
We are massively overpopulated already.
Those who choose not to have kids are Making room already in all the pediatric and child services they will never use.
Those with kids benefit when those without kids get the same treatment.
We’re not overpopulated, we’re bad at resource dispersal because we’ve built our society to reward greed and individualism.
That’s no different line of reasoning if you said billionaires don’t have too much money they are just bad a resource dispersal because we’ve built our society to reward greed and individualism. Which I wholly reject as well.
You aren’t wrong that we need to fix a lot of things such as our management or resources and waste products, and that greed and individualism are things we need to curtail, but just from water and food production going into the climate change we already have experienced, the global population is much worse off than it would be if we worked to reduce the global population by at least 1/3rd. (Under about 6.5 billion a d 4.9 being maximally ideal iirc)
That’s just how the data wizards worked things out. That number is not a static number either. If magically we woke up tomorrow and all of the systemic problems were suddenly functioning in the best possible technical capability we have right now, the global population could support about 18-20 billion if they were spread out maximally.
But that’s just not the reality we live in. We have so much waste both in usable things like food waste, and garbage from end of the line material(mostly plastic
That’s the conclusion I’ve arrived at after looking into this topic multiple multiple times. (I started looking at it seriously when countries began pulling out of the Kyoto Accords) I could be mistaken about some of the information I hold to be true, and if I am I will need to readjust my perspective on this, but I’m not going to do that with you. I dont have the patience or grace to argue with people who want to ignore reality.