Here’s a fact that isn’t very confusing. We count people by the billions and other large animal by the thousands. Just the numbers of gorillas and elephants vs people say it all. If you think that’s a reasonable balance you’re stupid. If you look at that J Curve population growth chart and not get that it. ****ing Jesus.

I think there is an in between here that makes both of you kind of correct. IF we don't change things we are probably approaching capacity, but technology has a lot to offer so I don't think we have a good grasp of potential capacity with the use of technology not yet discovered, developed, or implemented.


Lol. What? That's a non-point if I've ever heard one. What the **** does the ratio of elephants to people have to do with the amount of people the earth can sustain? Why do we have to be balanced with other species? Ants outnumber us by far and fungus dominates the planet. How do you feel about the ratio of bacteria to humans?

Dude, you'd have to be a complete idiot who hasn't kept pace with current technology and trends to come to that kind of conclusion. Neither you nor Lisna take those things into account yet you snub the conclusions of what I posted.

https://www.wired.com/story/lab-grown-meat/

Everything you think you know about food production is going to be a thing of the past as early as the next decade. There's also hundreds of thousands of miles of land out there that will become habitable as biotech and our grasp on agricultural tech advances continue to evolve. These aren't pipe dreams, but an inevitable place we will arrive at based on where we are right now.

And Lisna, I'm not disagreeing with your overall analysis (taken on its own with all other variables ignored), but beyond women who are infertile I don't see any info on mortality rates, statistics related to deaths caused by disease, etc. etc. You have to factor those things in, along with paradigm shifts in biotech and whatever else is going on out there that you haven't factored in.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5...b00310edf5b1b2

It’s not bears and seagulls pushing the seas into lifelessness, it’s people.

Run some math by you:

7 billion people eat more fish than 5 billion
5 billion people eat more fish than 1 billion
1 billion people eat more fish than 50 million

1 person = 1 consumer of resources
7 billion people = 7 billion consumers of resources

7,000,000,000 > 1

7 Billion people use more plastic than 5 Billion
5 Billion people use more plastic than 1 Billion

The reason there’s so much plastic in the ocean is because billions of people use plastic products.

Bears and elephants don’t use plastic. It simply must be the people.

How hard do you have to ****ing think about it to get that more people use more ****? Is this really something that people have to be taught?

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...lastic-bottles

Game changer boi, game changer. We're only a few years away from some variant of the enzyme discussed here being used by governments and corporations with gusto. And it'll be profitable, which means it will be used in earnest on those dastardly plastics.

It's funny because you never specified a name so the vague post could be aimed at both of us but he took it personally because he knows his ideas are silly.

Lab grown meat isn’t just matter grown out of nothingness. It still will ALWAYS take resources and energy to grow.

And uninhabited land isn’t being wasted. The more we invade it the less biodiversity there will be. Period.

Technology will never change the laws of physics.

Food MUST come from resources. Transforming matter into something edible MUST use energy. Used energy MUST create waste.

In a billion years these laws will still apply.

Reproduction generates resources that can be used for energy.

****ing Christ. Humans and elephants and gorillas are all mammals. ****ing holy hell. Really?

Yeah, and what does that have to do with the population capacity? We out number other large mammals therefore we are reaching maximum capacity?