And before anybody tells me some shit about bourgeois mismanagement of resources, shut the fuck up before i block you, I know. That doesn't change the inherent reality of there being an actual real finite number of human beings this planet can support period, much less comfortably. Kill all the bourgeoisie and redistribute everything equitably and you've raised the capacity for a comfortable life for a huge number of people, but you haven't changed the fact that if that number increases indefinitely, so too will the requirements to sustain it, and at some point something is going to break unless populations decline on their own (except what's going to happen is climate change- being effectively a reduction in carrying capacity due to numerous factors- is going to make that happen)

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.

I don't know about your country, but here in Poland (and well, whole Europe), most historical statisticians point to two facts, that remained unchanged at least since medieval times and were proven times and times again:

• people in the cities have fewer children that people in the villages
• people in villages have fewer children the less they need hands to do the work

So yeah, everything you wrote is true, up to and including "people can't afford children because of the new vampires", but it's not THE reason why they don't have children.

(IIRC its best explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition)

yikes dude, your critical thinking skills seems to be lacking more...

either that or you somehow took the entirety of packing ppl on 5% of the globe as a centralized single point lol.

right? i sounds great until you realize oh shit… logistics exist… all those perishable goods don’t just magically appear on people’s plates… 2.3billion people’s worth of food waste for 7.7bn people is honestly bloody miraculous tbh… can we do more to reduce food waste in our rich nations? sure… would that help feed people in areas of famine? unlikely

Haven't you read the top comments on this thread? It's impossible to feed people our excess and continue paying for things like USAID because of overpopulation.... Apparently.

The "let them starve" eugenics propaganda is strong in the pseudo-science community.

That's what the top comments on this thread say, seems to be the most agreed upon take unforunately.

So let's build lots of highspeed rail? We went to the moon on less compute than your cell phone and modern tech could be way more sustainable if we properly optimized. Rice is fantastic and works for a significant chunk of the current population just fine. Meat? Just gotta grow that protein in other more sustainable/efficient ways. Cars are useless in a dense urban environments and make everything worse. Fuck cars. Standalone houses are a giant waste of space and when you design your neighborhoods around this idea, everything is too spread out to actually have proper density and utility.

This is a very cool post that does point out that all of these things are in such excess. You should give StrongTowns and NotJustBikes a watch on youtube for much more on the topic of urban design.

So basically it's perfectly fine? But for some reason you made it sound horrible?

Source: my ass

Aviation is about 2.5% of global emissions.

In the long run then yes, we need carbon neutral fuels, but it should be possible for people to fly a little and not destroy the planet.

Or you could just take a train

Humans today are like 300% more biomass than every mammal on earth 100,000 years ago.