416

submitted 1 month ago by BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

308 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] regdog@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago

Any advanced society should be able to acknowledge that population growth must not outpace the available resources. Or else there will be Bad Times For All

[-] FantasmaNaCasca@lemmy.world 44 points 1 month ago

There are more houses/apartments than people.
There is more food going to the trash than what we need.

It's not that we have a lot of people. The problem is the greed of a few and the complacency/idiocy of the rest.

[-] booly@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 month ago

Yeah, having kids probably reduced my household resource consumption, compared to the dual income no kid lifestyle that my wife and I had before kids.

Population growth is so far disconnected from resource consumption, because people's resource consumption does not resemble a bell curve. A private jet produces more CO2 in an hour (about 2 tonnes) than the average Indian produces in a year (about 1.9 tonnes).

The poor people having children aren't destroying the planet. Rich people, childless or not, are. (And yes, I acknowledge that I fall under the "rich" category here.)

[-] FantasmaNaCasca@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

I don't know you, but you probably don't fall on the category of "rich" in my mind.

Richer than an Indian farmer. Ok. I'm also rich then. I live in a house (not mine) and don't go hungry.

I don't even consider billionaires on the scale.....that is just an afront on humanity and shouldn't exist.

[-] booly@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago

I think my personal resource consumption, if scaled up to the world population, would be devastating. That's what I mean by categorizing myself in the "rich." I might not be a billionaire, but I'm far, far above the global average, and still significantly above the national average for my nation.