The pursuit of eternal growth is toxic, campaigners say. The economy, and the planet, can thrive with fewer people
  •  ODGreen   ( @ODGreen@slrpnk.net ) English
    5•1 month ago

    I = PAT

    Impact is equal to population times affluence times technology.

    Decreasing human population can help to decrease impact, as long as the smaller population doesn’t disproportionately increase its resource use (affluence x technology)

    •  Elise   ( @xilliah@beehaw.org ) 
      2•30 days ago

      Tech is culture dependent though. You could theoretically go below 1 if it’s used wisely. For example vertical farms are less wasteful. But if course that doesn’t help if you’re buying a new phone every year.

        •  Elise   ( @xilliah@beehaw.org ) 
          1•30 days ago

          Wouldn’t I=PA/T be more suitable then? As tech increases it should decrease the impact of population and affluence.

          Anyway, sorry for being such a smartass. Of course it could be reciprocal. I guess what I am trying to get at is that it sounds like people think tech is bad for the environment, whereas actually it’s just our culture that’s doing it in.