• lightnsfw@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Are you suggesting that there’s no limit to how many people the resources we have available to us can support?

    • masquenox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh, there probably is. All things being equal (and that’s the important factor) there is next-to-no chance of us ever reaching such a bizarre amount of people - you could triple the amount of people on earth, and, all things being equal, we still wouldn’t be “overpopulated.”

      However, things are not equal - which means we are already existing way beyond that which our ecology can support. And it’s all thanks to capitalist parasites - a very small group of people sucking everything dry at the expense of everyone and everything else.

        • masquenox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What standard of living do you consider “all things being equal”?

          I don’t consider “standards of living” - period.

          I consider this.

          • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s literally an article about how they don’t have enough water. Yes, the rich are using twice as much as the poor and it would go further if it was distributed more evenly but the fact remains that there’s a finite amount that is not sustainable beyond a certain population.

            • masquenox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              This…

              All things being equal (and that’s the important factor) there is next-to-no chance of us ever reaching such a bizarre amount of people

              …just went completely over your head, didn’t it?

              • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                No? The article says rich people are using 2x as much water as poor people - 50% vs 23% and they are already having water problems. Assuming the water consumption was evened out this leaves the population room to go up no more than 4x what it is now even with equal consumption. That’s hardly out of the realm of possibility considering the population already has gone up 8x since 1950

                • masquenox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The article says rich people are using 2x as much water as poor people domestically.

                  FTFY. That’s just household use, Clyde. We haven’t even started with the water usage that makes the rich rich - ie, the private ownership of industry and commerce (which, of course, externalizes the destruction of water resources).

                  That’s hardly out of the realm of possibility considering the population already has gone up 8x since 1950

                  That kind of population growth is a thing of the past. The only way to successfully reverse that would be by design - such as the measures taken by certain aspects of the US political establishment to enforce patriarchal norms through institutionalized violence (ie, the criminalization of women’s healthcare).

                  • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Water used for industry is still going to be used regardless of who controls that industry. Poor people can be just as greedy as rich ones, they just don’t have a means to act on it.

                    Population growth has slowed but it has not stopped. Even at 1 or 2 % per year it will be only a few generations before it becomes an issue. 1% of 6,000,000 people is a lot more than 1% of 600,000.