• bstix
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The overpopulation isn’t happening in the 1%.

    It makes jack shit of a difference to the environment if there is one billion or two billion starving people. They’re not the ones burning carbon or eating steak.

    • Syrc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      But we want to stop those people from starving. And if we ideally lived in a world where no one is starving, emissions would go up astronomically.

      • bstix
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Only when assuming that it’s necessary to pollute as much as the 1% do to achieve a similar standard of living. It doesn’t have to.

        Looking at energy production, developing nations can and are skipping several decades of advances. They don’t have to go through the same phases where they chop down all the trees, dig up all the coal and burn all the oil. They can go directly to renewables, because the technology already exists, and they do.

        In regards to food, it’s obvious that we need to advance our agricultural technology. Even just the 1% isn’t sustainable. We will need to fix it regardless of whether we “want” to feed 1% or 100%, because it’s a massive problem already. The times of Ol’ McDonalds self-sustainable farm are long gone. It’s a meat factory, and it’s taking all of our resources and all of our land, and it simply shouldn’t.

        Unfortunately, it’s very difficult to address this politically because most of the population are still oblivious to how food is actually produced and how damaging it is to the environment. With how few people are actually employed in agriculture these days, it’s absolutely amazing how much political support they have for their business.