this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
265 points (97.8% liked)

World News

39149 readers
4018 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The human species has topped 8 billion, with longer lifespans offsetting fewer births, but world population growth continues a long-term trend of slowing down, the US Census Bureau said Thursday.

The bureau estimates that the global population exceeded the threshold on 26 September, though the agency said to take this precise date with a grain of salt.

The United Nations estimated the number was passed 10 months earlier, having declared 22 November 2022, the “Day of 8 Billion”, the Census Bureau pointed out in a statement.

The discrepancy is due to countries counting people differently — or not at all. Many lack systems to record births and deaths. Some of the most populous countries, such as India and Nigeria, haven’t conducted censuses in over a decade, according to the bureau.

While world population growth remains brisk, growing from 6 billion to 8 billion since the turn of the millennium, the rate has slowed since doubling between 1960 and 2000.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RedditWanderer -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

First off we have plenty of other sources of fertilizer, and while there would be impact on how things are done now with synthetic fertilizer, if wouldn't be the end of the world like you imply it would.

You're like someone 200 years ago saying "if all the horses died we wouldn't be able to travel". It's so shortsighted it's funny.

And of course the entire world is just going to migrate and die of thirst, they definitely won't desalinate and shove the brine in the environment. That doesn't fit the overpopulation fearmongering.

We'd have all these problems at 4 billion people, it makes no difference

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

First off we have plenty of other sources of fertilizer

Not in any amount that could sustain the industrial levels of farming that is required to feed the global population.

If we were dependent on the natural nitrogen cycle we wouldn't be able to sustain our current population without turning everything into one giant farm.

You're like someone 200 years ago saying "if all the horses died we wouldn't be able to travel". It's so shortsighted it's funny.

I just don't think you know anything about the nitrogen cycle, or how instrumental the haber process is to food production.

won't desalinate and shove the brine in the environment. That doesn't fit the overpopulation fearmongering.

Are the rich governments going to pay for the poor nations massive desalinization systems. What about land locked countries, or areas dependent on snow melt, or aquifer?

It's a complicated problem.

[–] poopkins 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Holy hell this is such a naive take that it makes my head spin. Phosphorus is an absolute essential for life on our planet and cannot be replaced or synthesized by something else. Currently it's literally running off farm lands and into the deepest depths of our oceans.

This is just one of the many examples of resources that are being depleted and will need a comprehensive and horrendously expensive global effort to be addressed, all while the world population continues to grow and increase in demand.

[–] RedditWanderer 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

We have plenty of phosphorus. For many hundreds of years from currently available supplies at current usage. It's how we use it and waste it.

It's much easier to deal with the science than the morals of who gets to live. Most countries will soon reach a good enough quality of life that populations will stop growing, but that won't solve the problem.

Killing off half the human population and spending horrendous amounts of resources keeping people from reproducing is a laughable solution that is as lazy as can be and achieves nothing long term or short term.

[–] poopkins 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I find this nothing to scoff at. At our current rate of consumption, estimates range from between 80-250 years [1] [2], unless we can find more phosphorus sources. In reality, our consumption is increasing and we are trending towards a shortage by 2040. Putting aside the resource shortage, we will need to double production to maintain our current simulated requirements by 2050 [3]. Increasing production in itself has significant climate and environmental pollution impacts.

All of this is to say, this is just one example of the complexity of the human footprint and sustaining ourselves as a species, in particular the challenges we will face as a consequence of overpopulation.

Nobody ever said we needed to "kill half the human population" or "keep people from reproducing." Please be civil and don't put words in my mouth.