
that, in an example taken to extremes to show a point, if there were only 10 people on the planet then they could do literally anything, drive the worst vehicle, club seals all day, eat all the meat they like, drive a tractor everywhere powered by coal which crushes animals every mile, or even fly their own jumbo jet daily on a constant holiday and not affect the planet at all.
It would carry on fine and be able to ignore them.
Conversely, if there were 100 billion people, just feeding them a vegan diet, while they were trapped in their homes trying to not breathe much or use calories, not driving, off-grid and being as environmental as they could then that would destroy the environment.
Somewhere in between is the number of people where we could live a life of excess and joy and not destroy the planet, and at a higher number is the amount of people the planet could support if we lived carefully. And it would not matter how they organised themselves, the sheer number of them is destructive.
Surely you can see that at some point, we will have to choose whether it is more important to have many people barely existing, or a lesser number living well?
( , Sun 27 Oct 2019, 19:19, Reply)

In the context of how many people there are right now, and where that number is predicted to level off, population size is less of a problem then the climate.
( , Sun 27 Oct 2019, 19:34, Reply)

As that bloke with the cubes demonstrated, we are nearing the maximum population and it will be roughly 11-13 billion.
Which is manageable IMO.
( , Sun 27 Oct 2019, 19:47, Reply)

It might take hundreds to years to reach the nearest system, but we should learnt to reproduce within limits and sustain a few generations for the journey. Once we reach a habital world we can colonise, if we're not eaten by the locals of course.
( , Sun 27 Oct 2019, 20:23, Reply)

I was thinking brexiters, trump supporters, the Tories etc etc
I like it here too
( , Mon 28 Oct 2019, 8:27, Reply)