Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

crickets

(25,983 posts)
21. Yes, that is a big part of the issue.
Mon Apr 10, 2023, 12:35 AM
Apr 2023

When it comes to resources of any kind, the earth only has so much to give, and right now the human race is likely past the carrying capacity of the planet.

https://worldpopulationhistory.org/carrying-capacity/

The ecological footprint is a measurement of the anthropogenic impact on earth. It tracks how much biocapacity (biological capacity) there is and how much biocapacity people use by comparing the rate at which we consume natural resources and generate waste to the planet’s ability to replenish those resources and absorb waste. Today, our global footprint is in overshoot. It would take 1.75 Earths to sustain our current population. If current trends continue, we will reach 3 Earths by the year 2050.


There is some disagreement about the attempt to reach a true estimate of Earth's carrying capacity, and world population growth has slowed but not yet peaked.

https://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html

The number of people Earth can support is not a fixed figure. The way humans produce and consume natural resources affects how our environment will be able to sustain future populations. As Gerland said, "When it comes to carrying capacity, it's a matter of mode of production, mode of consumption, who has access to what and how."

One study published in the journal the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences(opens in new tab) found that if the population of the United States switched to a vegetarian diet, the land used to grow crops for humans rather than animal feed for meat production would feed an additional 350 million Americans. High-income countries, where females have increased access to education and family planning, tend to have lower birth rates and smaller family sizes than middle- and low-income countries, according to Max Roser, director of the Oxford Martin Programme on Global Development in the U.K., writing in Our World in Data(opens in new tab).

Put another way, there may be an upper limit on how many humans Earth could support, but we don’t know exactly what that figure is. It varies based on how we produce, consume and manage our resources. For Cohen, if we want to affect how many people planet Earth can support, we will need to decide "how many people want Jaguars with four wheels and how many want jaguars with four legs."


Lucky us, Republicans are so het up about controlling women and going back to "the good old days" that they're trying to make women pop out more babies at any cost. Ugh.
End car culture, EVs only marginally better. Public transit, 15-minute cities. CoopersDad Apr 2023 #1
Rural residents will be required to move to cities unless they get a horse ? MichMan Apr 2023 #12
This creates a sense of existential crisis for Rural people. Model35mech Apr 2023 #16
There will always be cars, the difference is that we will not all be required to own one. CoopersDad Apr 2023 #18
Hardly true for people in rural communities Model35mech Apr 2023 #20
Nobody said that rural people have to change a single thing, keep whatever works for youo. CoopersDad Apr 2023 #23
I don't think that, I think rural people are threated by trashing ICE's and gasoline Model35mech Apr 2023 #30
Nowhere did I suggest that. eom. CoopersDad Apr 2023 #17
What public transportation is available in rural areas? MichMan Apr 2023 #19
I'd rather die than relocate to a city Amishman Apr 2023 #28
industry whines before each and every change in regulation. not often the end of the world dembotoz Apr 2023 #2
car companies are pretty much "all in" on EVs already Takket Apr 2023 #3
The cost prohibitive part will hurt low income people madville Apr 2023 #9
There are millions and millions of gas powered vehicles already out there MichMan Apr 2023 #4
Would be devastating for lower income folks madville Apr 2023 #10
Making gas vehicles prohibitively expensive to own and operate is the goal MichMan Apr 2023 #11
The biggest cut to auto emissions we can make long term is not having children. roamer65 Apr 2023 #15
Yes, that is a big part of the issue. crickets Apr 2023 #21
Plug-in hybrids are a great short term solution Victor_c3 Apr 2023 #5
I'd love to see a flex fuel compatible plug in hybrid. roamer65 Apr 2023 #8
Agriculture itself has huge environmental footprints, comparable to fossil fuels... hunter Apr 2023 #25
and it will be killed by a republican shopped for judge Fullduplexxx Apr 2023 #6
This will end up in the courts for a few years. roamer65 Apr 2023 #7
Remember the outrage over the proposed ban on gas stoves? Victor_c3 Apr 2023 #13
Very true. roamer65 Apr 2023 #14
Awesome! Do animal agriculture next! flvegan Apr 2023 #22
So, only elites will be able to afford new EVs as personal transportation, the poors get horses? Shanti Shanti Shanti Apr 2023 #24
My nephew lives in San Francisco. hunter Apr 2023 #26
Not everyone lives in densely packed urban centers, you could fit a dozen EU countries inside Texas Shanti Shanti Shanti Apr 2023 #27
Was I talking about "everyone?" hunter Apr 2023 #29
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»In big climate move, EPA ...»Reply #21