Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
They key to your question is "sustainably". We can support 8 billion humans without poverty for a time. We can support 10 billion for a shorter time. There is no way to support 8 billion sustainably.
A sustainable civilization uses zero fossil fuels, and recycles 100% of metals and engages in virtually no mining. Our civilization enjoyed a energy metabolism based on fossil fuels with an energy return of 100-1 in early 1900's. That spawns phenominal growth and automation. The easy oil is gone now, so we're living on 20-1 EROEI and declining quickly. Renewables give a roughly 3-1 eroei. Think about all the things civilization will have to prioritize to live on a 3-1 metabolism. Monster truck rallies, NASCAR and Jetset NBA teams flying around the country eating beef hamburgers served via drive-thru (sic) to your SUV is gonzo.
A sustainable world leaves 50% of land in a state of nature, untouched by human hands to preserve biodiversity. The number 1 occupation is permaculture gardiner/farmer and we live in ultra low energy passivehouses. Everyone eats local and transport of goods is done only by sail. No more fossil fueled powered combine harvesters.
As our micro and nano plastics crises is showing us, we would have to give up synthetics like polyester for clothing. Whatever population we have would be wearing cotton, wool, hemp and leather or their birthday suit. No more single serving anything.
I could go on, but you get the idea. How many humans can be supported depends on the consumption of resources allowed by society and the equality permitted within that society. There is no exact number as there are a ton of variables.
A mostly equal society living a comfortable but austere lifestyle could probably support 1 billion which is roughly dialing back life to before the industrial revolution. Say 1800's While the planet is much degraded since then you could argue the number is much lower, but we have a lot more knowledge and skill today about chemistry, medicine, sanitation etc.
At the same time, are we still running MRI's in modern hospitals? What kind of pharmaceuticals can be run sustainably when your average person is a permaculturist farmer. There will naturally be some specialization. Will we choose doctors or soldiers? Do we have a militaries and political factions? That will consume an enormous amount of our sustainable energy and materials budget, thus fewer lives can be supported withing your sustainability budget.
In my personal opinion, 500 million or less would be optimal.
We can definitely support the current population sustainably. The issue has never been resource shortage, it's resource distribution.
Well, the main issue is profits, and equitable distribution of resources isn't profitable.
Respectfully, no we can't. Not even close. Take away the fossil fuels and put civilization on renewables and biomass and see how many people you can support.
Incorrect. The issue is about sustainability - meaning you have to halt pollution, climate change emissions, resource consumption and land and water use and protect biodiversity to what can be renewed by natural processes indefinitely.
Take away fossil fuels and pesticides and herbicides and watch agricultural yields and yield density drop significantly. Are you pumping groundwater faster than it's being replenished? That too must end. How are you distributing this food to 10B sustainably? Ending soil erosion means permaculture where mechanization virtually ends. You also have to give back vast swaths of former farmland back to nature to protect biodiversity.
Your take is well meaning, but impossibly naive.