this post was submitted on 24 May 2026
480 points (88.1% liked)

Science Memes

20273 readers
998 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Sal@mander.xyz
fossilesque@mander.xyz
SciBot@mander.xyz
fossilesque@lemmy.dbzer0.com
480
We produce more resources than we could ever consume in the least sustainable ways possible. (mander.xyz)
submitted 12 hours ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
118 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] anamethatisnt@sopuli.xyz 5 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

The whole human biomass question is difficult to me. Half of humanity doesn't have access to proper toilets. I have cheap products produced by contemporary slaves in asia. Fewer people with better conditions sounds good to me.
There was an article released this year that found 2-2.5 billion humans to be the carrying capacity of the earth. I've only read the abstract though.
https://researchnow.flinders.edu.au/en/publications/global-human-population-has-surpassed-earths-sustainable-carrying/
Open access:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ae51aa

Berries in swedish forests go ungathered because the work pays so badly swedes refuse it and our new anti abuse laws stops the thai workers who did it for pennies earlier from coming here.
Good riddance, I say, people can gather their own blueberries and make their own jam - if the alternative is working conditions no one should have to suffer.

If the aim is to have no one live in squalor and have everyone live a luxurious, but preferably more eco friendly, western lifestyle then how many humans can the planet support without degrading over time?
How can we make 4-6 hours of daily paid work enough to live on, globally?
How can we change society to stop chasing growth and find a system that allows future generation a planet with wildlife, clean air and water and a temperature that humans can enjoy not just survive?

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

That was a weird ass study, they calculated the number based solely on historical population numbers and not any actual metrics regarding planetary capability. I have my doubts how useful a calculation that actually is.

[–] anamethatisnt@sopuli.xyz 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

They do use some more data than that, see my quote.

2.5. Indices of global change

We compared global human population size in the three main phases of facilitation, transition, and the negative r∼ N phase (see Results) to the global temperature anomaly obtained from the HadCRUT.5.0.2.0 ensemble prediction anomaly [56] relative to the 1960–1991 baseline (data available from 1850 to the present).
We hypothesize that the strongest positive relationship between human population size and climate change occurred during the negative phase because of consumption externalities such as increasing natural resource exploitation and loss of biodiversity. This can result from societies in the period of declining r and resources subsequently driving environmental degradation. In contrast, societies in the facilitation phase might have adequate resources to fuel increasing population growth rates.
We also used two additional indices of global change in the analyses to corroborate the results using global temperature anomaly: global ecological footprint measured as the number of Earths required to meet consumption rates [29], and total annual CO2-e emissions (ourworldindata.org).

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago

But that's still based on random points in history. Their argument is basically 'climate change started at this point, so that's where the max sustainable population is'. Which makes absolutely no sense. Technologies were different, cultural attitudes were different, yadda yadda. It's Malthusian arguments in a new (and less logical) wrapper.

[–] bufalo1973@piefed.social 2 points 5 hours ago

If the benefits of a trade is on the back of the worker then it's not a trade. They should rise the price so they can pay enough.