Beehaw
  • Communities
  • Create Post
  • search
    Search
  • Login
  • Sign Up
 Gaywallet (they/it)   ( @Gaywallet@beehaw.org ) MA to Science · 7 个月前

Study reveals that decent living standards for 8.5 billion people possible with only 30% of current global resource and energy use.

www.sciencedirect.com

external-link
message-square
16
link
fedilink
  • cross-posted to:
  • politics
  • collapse@lemm.ee
  • degrowth@slrpnk.net
118
external-link

Study reveals that decent living standards for 8.5 billion people possible with only 30% of current global resource and energy use.

www.sciencedirect.com

 Gaywallet (they/it)   ( @Gaywallet@beehaw.org ) MA to Science · 7 个月前
message-square
16
link
fedilink
  • cross-posted to:
  • politics
  • collapse@lemm.ee
  • degrowth@slrpnk.net
ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com
external-link
alert-triangle
You must log in or # to comment.
  •  hperrin   ( @hperrin@lemmy.ca ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    7 个月前

    Yeah but then the billionaires wouldn’t get to buy countries.

  •  ShinkanTrain   ( @ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    7 个月前

    Have you considered I need my jets to take off from my yatch though?

    •  suoko   ( @Suoko@feddit.it ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 个月前

      Gosh, we forgot you even exist, sorry man

  •  Archangel   ( @Archangel1313@lemm.ee ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    7 个月前

    That’s right, folks…we are all being robbed.

  •  sexy_peach   ( @sexy_peach@feddit.org ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    7 个月前

    I’m not surprised. It would probably take some collaboration, so it’s not necessarily going to happen.

  •  iii   ( @iii@mander.xyz ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    7 个月前

    I think the authors forgot that people aren’t sims.

  •  Thorry84   ( @Thorry84@feddit.nl ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 个月前

    Well it would be if that were the goal. But the real goal is to make rich people even more rich. And as always: Number must go up!

  •  classic   ( @classic@fedia.io ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    7 个月前

    Yeah but we’re not living for people

  •  jagged_circle   ( @jagged_circle@feddit.nl ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 个月前

    Prerequisite: first you gotta eat the rich

  •  Commiunism   ( @Commiunism@beehaw.org ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 个月前

    Almost as if commodity production-based economies aren’t there to provide for the people but to make profits and waste resources. It’s a shocker

  •  Toes♀   ( @Toes@ani.social ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 个月前

    So does that mean the maximum population of our planet is about ~30 billion people?

    •  Lvxferre [he/him]   ( @lvxferre@mander.xyz ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 个月前

      Probably not because that 30% is an average of different resources.

      For example. Let’s say you have two resources:

      • A - 10% of the current production of A is enough for the current pops
      • B - 50% of the current production of B is enough for the current pops

      Both average to 30%. If you multiply the population by 3, you still have a surplus of A, but now there isn’t enough B.

      Another concern is that increasing the population so much would force unsustainable approaches to resource extraction. In other words: 30 billion people living fine and dandy for a generation or two, and then their descendants living in a hellhole.

  •  MacroCyclo   ( @MacroCyclo@lemmy.ca ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 个月前

    The headline is a bit misleading. The authors give a range from 30-44%.

    Very interesting conclusions on economic growth and extreme poverty. When an economy grows, the basic necessities might become too expensive for the poorest in the country.

    •  Kissaki   ( @Kissaki@beehaw.org ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 个月前

      The headline is a bit misleading. The authors give a range from 30-44%.

      Their abstract mentions only 30%. That would mean the authors themselves are misleading in the abstract.

      Provisioning decent living standards (DLS) for 8.5 billion people would require only 30% of current global resource and energy use

  •  jagged_circle   ( @jagged_circle@feddit.nl ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 个月前

    Site doesn’t load.

  •  csolisr   ( @csolisr@hub.azkware.net ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 个月前

    You all trying to tell me that, all along, we didn’t really need to reduce the birth rates and let the natural selection cull all those innocent people?

Science

science

Subscribe from Remote Instance

Create a post
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !science@beehaw.org

Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

  • Space

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

  • https://lemmy.ml/c/science
  • https://mander.xyz/c/science

This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

Visibility: Public
globe

This community can be federated to other instances and be posted/commented in by their users.

  • 1 user / day
  • 90 users / week
  • 306 users / month
  • 1.37K users / 6 months
  • 3.23K local subscribers
  • 14.7K subscribers
  • 1.21K Posts
  • 5.61K Comments
  • Modlog
  • mods:
  •  Chris Remington   ( @remington@beehaw.org ) 
  •  alyaza [they/she]   ( @alyaza@beehaw.org ) 
  •  Gaywallet (they/it)   ( @Gaywallet@beehaw.org ) 
  • BE: 0.19.13
  • Modlog
  • Legal
  • Instances
  • Docs
  • Code