this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
1182 points (99.6% liked)

World News

45629 readers
3508 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

This is why I don’t believe people when they say “we don’t have an overpopulation problem, we have a distribution problem”

Because if everyone in the world had my lifestyle, we would be emitting an insane amount of carbon. And I don’t want my standard of living to go down, and in fact I want everyone to live as nicely as I do. So clearly we need fewer people.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How much of your carbon emissions are due to your quality of life and how much is due to inefficiencies/waste?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The vast bulk are from travel and meat consumption

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Assuming you live in North America, travel is highly inefficient with personal cars and high airplane usage.

Meat consumption on the other hand is a lifestyle choice. Personally, if be willing to reduce mine if we stopped subsidizing the industry and therefore stopped incentivizing such high consumption.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why are you waiting until the meat industry is no longer subsidised to reduce your meat consumption?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I'm on a budget. I eat less meat than the average North American, but I still need protein and meat is a lot less expensive than many of the alternatives, partially because we subsidize the meat industry so much.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

meat consumption doesn't emit any carbon.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Meat production does, and you can't consume meat that doesn't exist.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

once it's produced there's no point in not eating it

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The overpopulation isn't happening in the 1%.

It makes jack shit of a difference to the environment if there is one billion or two billion starving people. They're not the ones burning carbon or eating steak.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But we want to stop those people from starving. And if we ideally lived in a world where no one is starving, emissions would go up astronomically.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Only when assuming that it's necessary to pollute as much as the 1% do to achieve a similar standard of living. It doesn't have to.

Looking at energy production, developing nations can and are skipping several decades of advances. They don't have to go through the same phases where they chop down all the trees, dig up all the coal and burn all the oil. They can go directly to renewables, because the technology already exists, and they do.

In regards to food, it's obvious that we need to advance our agricultural technology. Even just the 1% isn't sustainable. We will need to fix it regardless of whether we "want" to feed 1% or 100%, because it's a massive problem already. The times of Ol' McDonalds self-sustainable farm are long gone. It's a meat factory, and it's taking all of our resources and all of our land, and it simply shouldn't.

Unfortunately, it's very difficult to address this politically because most of the population are still oblivious to how food is actually produced and how damaging it is to the environment. With how few people are actually employed in agriculture these days, it's absolutely amazing how much political support they have for their business.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

On the other hand, if everyone in the world had your lifestyle the world would be much more wealthy and could make a lot of positive changes.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you flying around the world on PJs constantly?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

All air travel is only 2% of carbon emissions.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I want everyone to have my lifestyle

Its the thought that counts, but no thanks