this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
1467 points (97.8% liked)

memes

10486 readers
2036 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

We need both.

Sustainability is defined by the amount of resources that a population can take from the environment without permanently destroying it. For a bigger population that amount of resources that can be used before reaching that threshold is smaller by person.

Just imagine a tribe living of a fruit tree that gives 10 apples a year. Maybe a tribe of 10 individuals can live of that tree but a tribe. But what happen when the tribe grows and suddenly there's 100 individuals trying to live of a 10 apple tree? It's illogical to take population out of the equation, because it's one of the biggest factors, the second biggest factor is quality of life (how many apples we eat a year), and the only factor that you are considering relevant is the one with the smallest impact that is how efficiently we recollect our apples. That last factor is the one with the smallest impact in the whole equation, and it's the only you seem to consider to solve our problem. We, of course, need to be efficient because it cost nothing, but efficiency by itself is not solving the whole problem.

Your own equation and your own logic is supporting my argument that we NEED to reduce population.

The only thing left against it is the dogma.