fatslob-:O said:
Realistically speaking it's our growth in consumption that will outstrip our growth in population and that's the bigger issue IMO since people want higher standards of living ... @Topic Science has yet to reach it's greatest power of them all, beyond the creation of biological or nuclear weapons but rather the manipulation of cosmos while religion is no more than a social construct ... Science is near absolute power and religion is just a bunch of platitudes ... |
It's pretty much a formula population x living standard. Divided by a sustainable production factor is our humanity footprint. Which already exceeds the earth's potential to feed us. And because of that the potential of our planet to feed us is also declining due to deforestation, nutrient depletion, waste, desertation, pollutants and climate change. Which decrease the ammount of arable soil and the availability of clean water. But population and living standards are both very important, but if people would at least produce in a circular way instead of a linear way the sustainable production factor would grow imensely. If 3 billion people died because of a new deadly virus or become inpotent it would also take a huge chunk out of the current footprint we have on earth, same if people would simply consume only what they need.
Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar