• MrScottyTay
    link
    English
    209 months ago

    I think they’re trying to say there would be if it wasn’t for consumerism.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        179 months ago

        Not saying this about you specifically cause the other person did it too but I miss when the internet sourced claims instead of just being like “no that’s wrong” with zero elaboration or evidence. Very few people are convinced by “nah not true” and nothing else

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          129 months ago

          Well, you are right. And I agree. Although in my defence, he made the initial claim without further evidence.

          Anywho, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), an agency operating under the UN, has done plenty of research and published papers about this.

          The conundrum lies in that while we need more effective food production, we also want everything to be grown naturally (without fertilizer and/or free range livestock etc.), which is ineffective.

          We need more land for crops and animals to feed more people, but we also need more space to house those same people, meanwhile we cannot continue deforestation.

          On top of those, soil needs time to replenish all the nutrients. If it’s not given that opportunity, it WILL become permanently unusable.

          There’s simply too many conflicting wants and needs that are strictly incompatible.

          • @otp
            link
            English
            49 months ago

            So are you suggesting that there would be enough resources to go around if we didn’t want organic food and huge single-family houses for homes?

              • @otp
                link
                English
                49 months ago

                I didn’t say they said that. I asked if they were suggesting it.

                • norbert
                  link
                  fedilink
                  09 months ago

                  If you read back through their comments I think you’ll have your answer.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        129 months ago

        We currently produce more than enough food and clothes for every person on this planet and could easily house them all.

        The problem is that because of capitalism we can’t get what everyone needs to them because it might hurt someone’s profits.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          59 months ago

          Yes, but even if we used the resources better, we would still come to a limit, just later. Eternal population growth is nonsense.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            29 months ago

            With proper logistics that becomes less of a problem when coupled with universal education and healthcare.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            3
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            But we can grow much more environmentally friendly foods if we choose to.

            The way we do things is not the only or even close to the best way.

        • originalucifer
          link
          fedilink
          39 months ago

          this is the reality no one wants to admit because it points out a major flaw in the human psyche… that is, the ability to lack empathy by distance. the farther away people are, the less we care about them.

          this is obvious is every facet of our daily existence, and is provable by the lack of dense conservative centers and how easily swayed those brought physically close to those remote entities (mentally or physically) become empathetic.

          humans suck, and we are the cause of resources not going where they are needed.