If so…… then why should we be sending aid to third world countries so they can barely survive, keep multiplying ; require more aid and in some cases to move migrate to different countries due to upheaval from overpopulation.

  • Masterofballs@exploding-heads.com
    5·
    1 year ago

    I think the earth can support many times it’s currently population. However; we need to build infrastructure for that to happen. We can build cities under the ocean, we could even farm underwater and that would be easier and cheaper than building a colony on mars. There is a ton of untapped energy on earth. The Sahara Desert alone gets enough sunlight to power every household in the world. It’s just a matter of transporting and storing that energy.

    People could live underground and harnes the geothermal energy of the earth.

    While we are doing these things we can attempt to start colonies on mars and in the clouds of Venus.

  • iamtanmay@exploding-heads.com
    4·
    1 year ago

    Its not. Before oil, Britain had cut down all its trees for industry. At that point, they were toast, due to no energy

    I would think roughly that kind of situation for the world would be the limit, but with current fuels - natural gas, coal etc, you have at least a couple hundred years before we need to worry about managing fuel to feed us

    There is also enough arable land and water, it just is not managed well and allowed to desertify or tapped out local reservoirs without replenishing from rivers or desalination

    Almost 50% of China’s water is unusable according to some reports. They still manage their giant population, however inefficiently

          • iamtanmay@exploding-heads.com
            3·
            1 year ago

            Its very interesting. I am here on work

            I’ve been all over West EU, and to PL, CZ, Croatia… other Slav countries are quite weird. But Bulgarians are very normal. So much, that I wonder if they are really Slavs ! Even your Romanian neighbours are real weirdos…

            West EU is uptight e.g Germany or a cartoon stereotype, e.g Italy. Central EU are weirdos. Bulgarians seems to be sanest and most normal people in Europe. Very chill people

            And also, I hear a lot of Sofia Bulgarians trying to speak American style English… Romanians, Poles, Czechs prefer UK

            • Owner_of_donky@exploding-heads.com
              1·
              1 year ago

              Thanks for that!

              Don’t watch the Romanians. Since the beginning of time they have tried to look like the westerners. Their language is even part of the roman group which is mostly western languages.

              Now here is a quick Sofia guide:

              • Autobus No. 204 goes trough almost all of the important part of the city. If you want to go the western part of the city you use trolley No. 7. If you want to go to the northern part of the city you use metro line 3 (the green one)

              • If you need fast food you take a banica. A good place for banica is here (not exactly this shop but there is one next to it)

              • If banica is a thing that you don’t like you take a düner. Even though it is Turkish food we love it and take it if banica isn’t available around. The best places are here, here or the chain Mimas. If you aren’t near any of those you watch if the chef is turkish. Most places with turkish chefs make them good.

              • Good restaurants in the centre are Cibo nel Camino and Bankovic

              • If you need a taxi you never take the ones that says OK! on them. A lot of them are fake and charge more than normal. The most trustworthy are Radio SV Taxi (with red letters it is written Радио СВ Такси) or Yellow taxi

              If you need any help let me know. Enjoy the rakia and don’t forget to get an ayran with your banica

  • Owner_of_donky@exploding-heads.com
    3·
    1 year ago

    No, the world would need to be much much more populated before we would need to worry about the numbers. Yes, there might be some mismanagement of the food in some countries which causes inflation, or corruption in some African countries which kill people but that isn’t overpopulation.

    As far as fuels go I don’t think we should worry about them at all. I would assume that for the next ~1000 years there will be enough fuel for all. Until then we would have found a much better ways of generating and storing energy.

  • zamorano@exploding-heads.com
    3·
    1 year ago

    I understand its a distribution problem. Everyone wants to sell their food where the prices are higher, so they ship it to the US, and they throw it in the garbage. Meanwhile in the third world, they get sent bags of rice for free and the military takes it.

  • PunknSeed@exploding-heads.com
    3·
    1 year ago

    No. You could fit the entire human population (8 billion) into Texas and each person would still have 925 square feet (86 square meters) to themselves.

    • SJ0@lemmy.fbxl.net
      1·
      1 year ago

      Doing some research, it looks like potatoes are one of the most energy dense foods you can grow at 17.8 million calories per irrigated acre. A regular human diet of about 2000 calories per day would work out to about 730,000 calories per year. This means that if you used every mm of that area to grow potatoes, you’d come up short, about 356,000 calories per year. And you’d need to find water, and so on and so forth, I think it’d be a challenge.

      On the other hand, the US has about 1.6 Billion acres of land that’s presently used for grazing cattle, forests, farming and so on, so if you gave 8 billion people a fair share of each, you’d give everyone 0.2 acres about 800m3. At that point, each individual person on earth would likely have enough land to grow food, have a place to live, maybe have some light (or heavy) industry.

      Incidentally, the federal government owns about 640 million acres (2.6 million km2) of land in the United States, about 28% of the total land area of 2.27 billion acres (9.2 million km2). That could be enough to provide 0.08 acres (Approx 3000 square feet) to everyone on earth, and if you assume (incorrectly) that all that land is fertile enough to grow potatoes with irrigation, that area could likely just barely feed and house everyone and also give a bit of space for a fallow field.

  • SJ0@lemmy.fbxl.net
    1·
    1 year ago

    I did some math, and if we want to keep having the quality of life we have and we want to go with “green technologies” and stop using fossil fuels, we can’t have as many people on the planet. Simple as.

    If people care so deeply that they want to “STOP OIL NOW” then a lot of people all around the world will have to die, and a lot of the poorest nations will be hit hardest, and we shouldn’t be importing people from low energy use jurisdictions to high energy use jurisdictions.

    Basically, going fully green isn’t of any benefit to the progressive project.

    • Kapow@exploding-heads.com
      4·
      1 year ago

      Implementing “green technologies” that are of marginal net benefit at best at the cost of human life seems like a poor choice.

      Of course, if you are truly committed to the cause you can always visit Canada where they will gladly help you reduce the world’s population by 1.