113
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] [email protected] 31 points 1 week ago

Yeah but then the billionaires wouldn’t get to buy countries.

[-] [email protected] 22 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Have you considered I need my jets to take off from my yatch though?

[-] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

Gosh, we forgot you even exist, sorry man

[-] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago

That's right, folks...we are all being robbed.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago

I'm not surprised. It would probably take some collaboration, so it's not necessarily going to happen.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

I think the authors forgot that people aren't sims.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

So does that mean the maximum population of our planet is about ~30 billion people?

[-] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

Probably not because that 30% is an average of different resources.

For example. Let's say you have two resources:

  • A - 10% of the current production of A is enough for the current pops
  • B - 50% of the current production of B is enough for the current pops

Both average to 30%. If you multiply the population by 3, you still have a surplus of A, but now there isn't enough B.

Another concern is that increasing the population so much would force unsustainable approaches to resource extraction. In other words: 30 billion people living fine and dandy for a generation or two, and then their descendants living in a hellhole.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

Yeah but we're not living for people

[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

Prerequisite: first you gotta eat the rich

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Well it would be if that were the goal. But the real goal is to make rich people even more rich. And as always: Number must go up!

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Almost as if commodity production-based economies aren't there to provide for the people but to make profits and waste resources. It's a shocker

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

The headline is a bit misleading. The authors give a range from 30-44%.

Very interesting conclusions on economic growth and extreme poverty. When an economy grows, the basic necessities might become too expensive for the poorest in the country.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

The headline is a bit misleading. The authors give a range from 30-44%.

Their abstract mentions only 30%. That would mean the authors themselves are misleading in the abstract.

Provisioning decent living standards (DLS) for 8.5 billion people would require only 30% of current global resource and energy use

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

You all trying to tell me that, all along, we didn't really need to reduce the birth rates and let the natural selection cull all those innocent people?

[-] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Site doesn't load.

this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
113 points (100.0% liked)

Science

13361 readers
1 users here now

Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS