- cross-posted to:
- sociology@mander.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- sociology@mander.xyz
There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.
- KairuByte ( @KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English3•1 year ago
I mean, it would have to. Exponential growth isn’t sustainable.
- Sonori ( @sonori@beehaw.org ) English1•1 year ago
Yes, but there is a big difference between leveling out at 10 billion, 100 billion, 1 trillion, or 10 trillion, and since we can probably sustain any of the four numbers listed above with current tech, social factors will decide where more so than an inability to meet demand.
- KairuByte ( @KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English2•1 year ago
If population jumped into the hundreds of billions we would die off for a bunch of different reasons. Current tech doesn’t really exist to sustain a population that large.
- Sonori ( @sonori@beehaw.org ) English1•1 year ago
I mean obviously if a hundred billion just appeared tomorrow then we would have trouble scaling production, but i don’t think we really lack any of the hard inputs. Switching from open field to greenhouse food production alone increase food production ten times over while reducing water usage, just require a lot more farmers. We are not about to run out of land for housing anytime soon, and have plenty of spicy rocks for fission power.