/sci/ - Science & Math

>Sustainable!

>>15075303
Look at this and say "sustainable" with a straight face.

Arguments against overpopulation always amaze me.
Climate change, peak resources, physically chomping through ecosystems are all happening on scales measured in decades. "Sustainability" is always expressed as a lofty aspiration. In what universe is this not overpopulation? Even if you could erase all luxury and violence and have a world of peaceful, frugal monks, industrial agriculture alone can't keep going like this indefinitely.

>>11596030
>So you want to force humanity into suffering
Unfortunately, great calamities are the only way people learn. People are dumb animals. They first need have family drown in a flood before they realize building a dyke might be a good idea. They first need to have friends die in a fire before they agree that building codes are good to have.

>I want to break it up.
You're not breaking anything up. People will consume all the resources they can. They always will. It's Jevons paradox and you're walking right into it with "let's just open up more resources in space!". Populations always grow until they hit a limit.

>lock everyone in the room and take away food and water.
No, I want to see human population reduced to stable and maintainable levels. This planet can be a high-tech Utopia for 100 million people, not 10 billion, which is where we're going (though we'll probably crash before then)

>fail to explain the problem with expanding.
Our population level is already unsustainable. Your solution is to buy us more time and postpone the inevitable. My solution is to reduce population and avert the inevitable.