Any advanced society should be able to acknowledge that population growth must not outpace the available resources. Or else there will be Bad Times For All

[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 month ago (2 children)

There are more houses/apartments than people.
There is more food going to the trash than what we need.

It's not that we have a lot of people. The problem is the greed of a few and the complacency/idiocy of the rest.

[–] booly 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, having kids probably reduced my household resource consumption, compared to the dual income no kid lifestyle that my wife and I had before kids.

Population growth is so far disconnected from resource consumption, because people's resource consumption does not resemble a bell curve. A private jet produces more CO2 in an hour (about 2 tonnes) than the average Indian produces in a year (about 1.9 tonnes).

The poor people having children aren't destroying the planet. Rich people, childless or not, are. (And yes, I acknowledge that I fall under the "rich" category here.)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't know you, but you probably don't fall on the category of "rich" in my mind.

Richer than an Indian farmer. Ok. I'm also rich then. I live in a house (not mine) and don't go hungry.

I don't even consider billionaires on the scale.....that is just an afront on humanity and shouldn't exist.

[–] booly 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think my personal resource consumption, if scaled up to the world population, would be devastating. That's what I mean by categorizing myself in the "rich." I might not be a billionaire, but I'm far, far above the global average, and still significantly above the national average for my nation.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Points to you, for self-awareness.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago

Based on currently available numbers, there are about 31 vacant housing units for every homeless person in the U.S.