2026-10-14 19:45 UTC
Replies (6)
-
@axh@lemmy.world 2026-10-14 20:37
Soylent green. Also, people are saying a lot of stupid things, and I heard it from you first.
-
@mosaic09@lemmy.ca 2026-10-14 20:55
pretty good, returned as fertilizers for the higher latitudes, humans should limit habitat to only up to the subtropical areas. Give back space to nature. Unfeasible, but not a bad idea.
-
@GonzoAtBarstow@lemmy.world 2026-10-14 23:48
I don’t know how many people we should have, but there are some metrics we could look at and maybe say beyond a certain point managing these metrics becomes harder as we scale, or even impossible. If we had kept our population low enough, we could have subsisted on a timer and whale blubber energy policy indefinitely. :P
-
@pastermil@sh.itjust.works 2026-10-15 03:32
The sea.
-
@isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2026-10-15 04:26
Where are we going to bury all those people when they die of natural causes? And you would have to be pretty fucking dense to interpret someone saying, “the ideal human population level is 4 billion” to mean “let’s kill people until we get down to that number.”
-
@MyButSmellsBat@feddit.org 2026-10-15 16:05
People have a vastly different ecological footprints. Overrich people and some companies (especially oil companies) have the highest. You don’t need to kill people to make the earth habitable for all humans. Instead we need to stop the rich from their greed and divide the recources better. There are enough recources on earth if they would be used wisely.