Comment on We produce more resources than we could ever consume in the least sustainable ways possible.

Alaknar@sopuli.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• discocactus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  We should be ecstatic about the population decline. The surplus production from automated/industrial systems can more than make up for the decline in population. The resource issues are purely a matter of distribution. The people who oppose the common sense solutions to the distribution issues can be sidelined or composted.

  source

  • Alaknar@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    I would agree with you if we went all in on UBI, including Universal Basic Pension. Because without that, population decline means slowly starving out the elderly, or throwing so much work on the younger generations, that they reproduce even less.

    source

    • boonhet@sopuli.xyz ⁨20⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      If everyone is old and nobody is left to work, it doesn’t matter how big the pension is, there’s nothing to buy

      source

      • Alaknar@sopuli.xyz ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        There are only three solutions to this problem:

        1. UBI + UBP, like I mentioned.
        2. Throw so much work at the young that they literally cannot do anything else but work.
        3. Completely restructure how the retirement system works on a fundamental level.

        1 is impossible because Capitalism.

        2 ends in an even bigger disaster than we have now.

        3 is inconceivable. Would probably require some form of “communism for old people” where everything is provided without money being required and they get a relatively small amount of cash in case they want to travel. Won’t ever happen because greed exists.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  We are producing enough food (and clothes, and appliances, etc., etc.) for 10 billion people, and the planet is burning. It is not sustainable long term.

  That’s not necessarily true. How much of our overall greenhouse emissions come from which sector?

  From this chart, decarbonizing electricity and transport will go a long, long way, and decarbonizing manufacturing and construction could also give some room to reduce overall emissions by more than the entire agricultural sector produces.

  And it’s not just some kind of pipe dream. We’re doing real work at decarbonizing electricity, heat, transport, shipping, construction, etc., as the prices of low or zero emissions options start to outcompete the higher emission options for many applications.

  Plus if the data center boom crashes as a bubble, a lot of the infrastructure investment into increasing energy production and distribution with both high carbon and low carbon sources will at least have financed a lot of low carbon energy and the potential for curtailing the least carbon efficient generation methods.

  source

  • SpongyAneurysm@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Too narrow a view. You’re looking at it purely through the climate change lens.

    Our farming activities have other issues as well though, which won’t go away no matter how successful decarbonization is going to be.

    Eutrophication of soil and bodies of water through intensive use of fertilizer and the loss of biodiversity which comes with that, as well as with widespread pesticide use and the loss of small scale structures across agricultural land is one huge example. Top-soil erosion is another one.

    source

    • discocactus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Those issues are really only a result of overuse of inputs driven by meat consumption, fuel ethanol production, and basic misunderstanding/incompetence at agroecology. Not hard problems to solve if regulatory tools can be used. Wouldn’t be an issue if you could get rid of industry groups and lobbyists etc.

      source

      • r1veRRR@feddit.org ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        It wouldn’t be an issue if you suddenly had to tell everyone in the western world they need to cut their meat consumption to like 1/10? I’ve seen how even the seemingly smartest, most rational western leftist reacts to the mere suggestion that their personal consumption habits are unsustainable, no matter the economic system. Good luck…

        source
      • SpongyAneurysm@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Wouldn’t be an issue if you could get rid of industry groups and lobbyists etc.

        and we all know how easy that is…

        I didn’t mean to sound too gloomy, those things can definitely be changed as well. I just meant to say, that if you purely focus on climate issues, those issues still remain unchanged.

        I disagree with your analysis however. It’s not just meat consumption and energy crops. I mean, both of those are particularly bad, sure, but other fields (pun intended) are also not super sustainable.

        source
    • sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      I take your point, but I also think that all the other stuff can improve, too. Fertilizer use peaked in the US in 2013, and better land use practices are trying to use less water and less fertilizer and allow less erosion.

      None of this is by any means guaranteed to get better, but it’s also not inevitable that it will get worse. The work needs to be done.

      source

      • SpongyAneurysm@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        There’s definitely a lot of work to be done. The relevant question for this discussion is, if we’re going to have to take cuts to productivity during the transformation to more sustainable practices.

        I can’t give a qualified answer to that, but I guess we’d have to. However there are also promising new technologies emerging, that might be able to mitigate those; like precision farming and agro-robotics.

        source