Notice it is the warmer periods in history where mankind tended to flourish and evolve arts, literature, education, and science.
You are the carbon they want to reduce...
- Thread starter Quanto
- Start date
Notice it is the warmer periods in history where mankind tended to flourish and evolve arts, literature, education, and science.
I’m no expert but I’d say it sucks in the Gaza Strip right now but that has nothing to do with population.
The conflicts in the world are relatively tame compared to the past. Same with things like violent crime and disease. I get this stuff is hard to believe but for the most off we are healthier and safer than we have ever been.
Better weapons help
War for most of history was won by hacking to death the opposing army. Then the pillage and burning the city, taking slaves and killing the rest of the town people.
War today is so destructive on infrastructure , and that ends war much faster...No more 100 years war
Quality of life has improved with technology. Does the rate of improvement of technology increase with population size? Perhaps - but it's a trade-off.
That's because we are drawing down natural capital more rapidly.
Do you mean natural resources? I don’t think so. It’s more to do with vaccines, the internet and global trade.
I read in 10 years you could see the first fully AI doctor. Just think about the ramifications of that. Try to understand I’m not arguing human advancement is dependent on exponential population growth, just human advancement benefits the entire human population (by and large). And yes I get it takes a while for the benefits to reach the poorest of humanity but it will.
What’s the trade off? I’m getting Soylent Green vibes from some in this thread.
Those things keep us alive. While we're alive we convert natural resources (mass/energy) to products, services, and inevitably, waste. As our numbers grow we do this to a greater degree. The laws of thermodynamics have not been broken yet. Every atom and molecule we've ever dug up and converted to something else, and waste aka pollution, is still right here with us, it doesn't go away, there is no "outside", we're all inside with it, every bit of it.
The nine-planetary boundary model is, if not exhaustive, sufficient to bring a student up to speed on the fundamental problem.
The calculations keep changing on how many humans the earth can actually sustain. I think the last accepted number was 10 billion. Prior to that it was estimated like 6 billion. What changed was advancement in things like agriculture, medicine and technology. My point is that there is most likely a peak human population but the numbers change as we advance.