A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
This study is dangerously stupid.
We are rapidly running out of resources for survival.
Global fresh water demand will exceed supply by 40% by 2030 and 90% of topsoil is at risk of depletion by 2050.
We are already over capacity on fresh water demand for the amount of humans alive on this planet.
Top soil is what food grows in. Without top soil we can't grow food.
Billions of people will die this century. The planet cannot support any more people. Don't have kids.
No, we are not over capacity for survival. We waste a ton of water on stuff we don't need, like having lawns in the desert or choosing to grow almonds during droughts when people have to ration water usage at home. . Top soil is the same, we could, collectively, switch from beef and to a lesser extent pork to focus on much more efficient chicken, thus freeing a lot of land used to feed livestock.
Stop this Malthusian nonsense, we have enough resources for everyone. They are just severely mismanaged to the point of killing us all. We could live sustainably if we wanted to, we just choose not to.
It is true there are too many billionaires. We can provide everyone, if some of them also need 10 private jets.
This is one of the things that pisses me off about the Star Trek "fans" who point to the Replicator tech (which wasn't introduced until the Next Generation series) as the reason humanity was able to end scarcity. No, it absolutely was not what ended scarcity in the Star Trek universe. What ended scarcity was the absolute end of capitalism. We have now and have had for over a century, the capability to end world hunger and provide housing for every man woman and child on the planet. We don't do it because it would remove the overinflated value of those things as well as the obscene wealth of the rich.
Capitalism requires scarcity as its engine.
When scarcity is threatened, it is called the capitalist dirty word "commodity".
It means there is no more profit in that.
what about food and place to live? seems to me we are stealing too much land from nature.
Build upwards instead of outwards
Replacing all forms of power generation with nuclear would protect a lot of land but war exists and blowing up a nuclear plant causes longer lasting damage than a solar farm
And where do we put all that radioactive waste?
Under
In my backyard
I know the world has more than enough resources and productivity for everyone on it to live comfortably without overworking, but 30% is the lowest figure I’ve ever seen. Would like to know where that came from. I’ve seen so many widely varying estimates of everything.
Someone else posted what it means. It means 10m² living space per person, 4 people share 20m² for bathroom and kitchen, you don't eat meat, you wash tops every ~3 days and bottoms every ~14 days(laundry is shared with ~20 people). Something like 4 people are expected to share a laptop with specs that were cutting edge 15 years ago(a "gaming pc" would only be able to be used for ~150 hours per year).
It is a MAJOR downgrade from how most people live, even those in poverty, and is just not appealing to all but the most minimalist of people. It's more akin to living in an RV or "van life"(except you're not supposed to have a car in this situation either - public transportation only).
It's also ignoring the fact that we have already surpassed the limitations of what the nitrogen cycle could normally provide. So we would still be relying on fertilizers produced with fossil fuels.
I recommend reading the image to find the source