Homo sapiens has evolved to reproduce exponentially, expand geographically, and consume all available resources. For most of humanity’s evolutionary history, such expansionist tendencies have been countered by negative feedback. However, the scientific revolution and the use of fossil fuels reduced many forms of negative feedback, enabling us to realize our full potential for exponential growth. This natural capacity is being reinforced by growth-oriented neoliberal economics—nurture complements nature. Problem: the human enterprise is a ‘dissipative structure’ and sub-system of the ecosphere—it can grow and maintain itself only by consuming and dissipating available energy and resources extracted from its host system, the ecosphere, and discharging waste back into its host. The population increase from one to eight billion, and >100-fold expansion of real GWP in just two centuries on a finite planet, has thus propelled modern techno-industrial society into a state of advanced overshoot. We are consuming and polluting the biophysical basis of our own existence. Climate change is the best-known symptom of overshoot, but mainstream ‘solutions’ will actually accelerate climate disruption and worsen overshoot. Humanity is exhibiting the characteristic dynamics of a one-off population boom–bust cycle. The global economy will inevitably contract and humanity will suffer a major population ‘correction’ in this century.
Bullshit. Overpopulation is a neocolonialist myth about why developed countries get to keep doing the same thing and mid&low-income countries have to cut emissions while somehow also fulfilling their debt obligations to the high income countries by being their slaves.
The overconsumption of high income countries is mainly driven by their own wealth inequality & the sheer greed of every industry not population either.
You don’t understand ecosystem carrying capacity overshoot. For a gentle introduction, pick up Catton’s book. You can download it from the usual sites.
Resource consumption is not a linear function of population you malthusian pseudointellectual garbage. I know more than you
Be nice. First and only warning.
The industrial agriculture that supports our current population is entirely dependent on fossil fuels.
At some point humanity is going to have to face life without fossil fuels, whether that be by a far too late attempt at curbing climate change, or due to climate change/water shortage related reductions in population that reduce production, or just due to dwindling EROI as we have to drill in more difficult places to keep the oil pumping.
Here’s that study: https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/wps/cato/0028024/f_0028024_22818.pdf
Seems pretty clear that if the use of a finite resource is the only way we can sustain the population - we’re overpopulated. Not to mention that said finite resource is also actively killing us and making agriculture more difficult due to extreme weather.
You have a reasonable argument, but then the solution should be to stop all fossil fuel consumption except for the production of life-sustaining products, like food.
According to this link, food production accounts for only 26% of total carbon output. There we go, problem solved. We can cut total carbon output by 74% and still produce the same amount of food.
I didn’t say there was a solution. Stopping fossil fuels, along with plummeting quality of life, means less global dimming, which would accelerate our impending BOE, and the loss of albedo from that would further accelerate warming. We’re way past any possibility of a solution.
I wasn’t even aware of those details, even though I share the feeling that we’re past any possibility of a solution. I want to believe that there is a chance and not be a doomer and give up, but it’s hard. I hope we’re wrong. :(
Hahahahaha oh man you are just mentally imprisoning yourself for no reason
Resource consumption is not a linear function of population you complete dunderhead 🤣
Resource consumption is not a linear function of population you complete dunderhead 🤣
Your argument that overconsumption is the culprit but not population doesn’t make sense when the equation is (Population X Consumption)= Environmental impact.
There is no consumption without the population.
And virtually all the published everything about overpopulation is fully onboard that first world consumption needs to come down and 3rd world needs to go up to be fair.
Why does everyone think talking about overpopulation means you are hitler looking for lebensraum?
Because that’s exactly what it sounds like the path that people are alluding to when they mention overpopulation before or especially without overconsumption. I used to think that overpopulation was the problem too, but I have come to my senses.
yeah but there is no consumption without population. Pop*consumption= environmental impact.
Talking about population doesn’t imply ignoring consumption as the best target for mitigating the problem. But the market will do that as prices rise and kick more population out of the “consumption is viable” cohort. unfortunately the market starts with the poorest and least consuming
You deliberately misunderstood what I said lol
I completely agree.
For those disagreeing, let’s use CO2 emissions as a proxy for resource consumption. CO2 emissions per capita per year is 38.2 metric tons in Qatar, while it’s 0.1 metric tons in Uganda (as of 2018 - source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita). That means one person in Qatar (pop: 2.8 million) consumes as many resources as 382 people in Uganda (pop: 48 million). By the way, for the US, that figure on the same list is 16.1 metric tons, so one person in the US consumes as much as 161 people in Uganda (pop: 333 million).
How could anyone with a straight face say that “overpopulation” is the problem? That’s a straight up genocidal way to think about the issue of resource overshoot.
They don’t care about real numbers. They want the numbers they made up