Prerequisite: first you gotta eat the rich
this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
104 points (100.0% liked)
Science
13328 readers
4 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
Yeah but then the billionaires wouldn’t get to buy countries.
That's right, folks...we are all being robbed.
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.
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
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
I'm not surprised. It would probably take some collaboration, so it's not necessarily going to happen.
I think the authors forgot that people aren't sims.
So does that mean the maximum population of our planet is about ~30 billion people?
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.
Yeah but we're not living for people
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!
Site doesn't load.
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?