114
top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 5 points 1 day ago

Prerequisite: first you gotta eat the rich

[-] hperrin@lemmy.ca 31 points 1 day ago

Yeah but then the billionaires wouldn’t get to buy countries.

[-] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Have you considered I need my jets to take off from my yatch though?

[-] Suoko@feddit.it 6 points 1 day ago

Gosh, we forgot you even exist, sorry man

[-] Archangel1313@lemm.ee 18 points 1 day ago

That's right, folks...we are all being robbed.

[-] MacroCyclo@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago

The headline is a bit misleading. The authors give a range from 30-44%.

Very interesting conclusions on economic growth and extreme poverty. When an economy grows, the basic necessities might become too expensive for the poorest in the country.

[-] Kissaki@beehaw.org 1 points 1 day ago

The headline is a bit misleading. The authors give a range from 30-44%.

Their abstract mentions only 30%. That would mean the authors themselves are misleading in the abstract.

Provisioning decent living standards (DLS) for 8.5 billion people would require only 30% of current global resource and energy use

[-] Commiunism@beehaw.org 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Almost as if commodity production-based economies aren't there to provide for the people but to make profits and waste resources. It's a shocker

[-] sexy_peach@feddit.org 14 points 1 day ago

I'm not surprised. It would probably take some collaboration, so it's not necessarily going to happen.

[-] Toes@ani.social 5 points 1 day ago

So does that mean the maximum population of our planet is about ~30 billion people?

[-] lvxferre@mander.xyz 7 points 1 day ago

Probably not because that 30% is an average of different resources.

For example. Let's say you have two resources:

  • A - 10% of the current production of A is enough for the current pops
  • B - 50% of the current production of B is enough for the current pops

Both average to 30%. If you multiply the population by 3, you still have a surplus of A, but now there isn't enough B.

Another concern is that increasing the population so much would force unsustainable approaches to resource extraction. In other words: 30 billion people living fine and dandy for a generation or two, and then their descendants living in a hellhole.

[-] iii@mander.xyz 8 points 1 day ago

I think the authors forgot that people aren't sims.

[-] classic@fedia.io 5 points 1 day ago

Yeah but we're not living for people

[-] Thorry84@feddit.nl 3 points 1 day ago

Well it would be if that were the goal. But the real goal is to make rich people even more rich. And as always: Number must go up!

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 0 points 1 day ago

Site doesn't load.

[-] csolisr@hub.azkware.net 1 points 1 day ago

You all trying to tell me that, all along, we didn't really need to reduce the birth rates and let the natural selection cull all those innocent people?

this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
114 points (100.0% liked)

Science

13328 readers
9 users here now

Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS