• CrimeIsLegalNow@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    The next step is asking what the natural environmental limits on the human population are, but don’t worry, we’ll find out.

    • Grail@multiverse.soulism.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Nah, we won’t. The world can support far more than 8 billion humans.

      It’s just that the world can’t support 8 billion white humans driving cars everywhere, eating meat, and buying a ton of plastic crap. It probably can’t even support 1 billion of those assholes.

      • Simulation6@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        The ‘I hate white people’ part aside, this is wrong. The earth can not support 8 billion people long term at any level of living standard.

        • Grail@multiverse.soulism.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Nah, the EAT-Lancet report says the Earth can support 10 billion humans, if radical changes are made to consumption habits.

          And mathematically speaking, white people are the biggest offenders on climate, who will need to make the biggest changes to follow the EAT-Lancet report’s advice. It’s not prejudice, it’s just math. White culture is a social construct that causes destructive climate vandalism behaviour.

          • Simulation6@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            EAT-Lancet really only talks about feeding people and under current conditions. But conditions change. Rising water levels and shifting climates are going to be happening in the short term. If you are OK with millions of people starving to death because of a drought or a disease or pest infestation, then sure, live on the edge.