It's both, though. Yes, the Earth can support more humans with a lifestyle closer to that of the West in the 19th century than with a lifestyle closer to the the West in the 21st, but even in the 19th (and earlier) deforestation and the like were happening. And it's just reality that as societies prosper they use more resources per person. 50 years ago the vast majority of Chinese didn't use cars but walked and and bicycled. Now they are quite car dependent.
I'm not sure that's an easy argument to hold up. Where would you draw the line on lifestyle that can and should reasonably change?
We've populated large portions of the planet that we really have no business living in without climate controlled indoor environments. HVAC is also a huge energy suck with all the externalities that come along with it. If we were to really want to cut energy use, for example, and climate control had to go we almost certainly couldn't continue to sustain as many people as we have today.
> Where would you draw the line on lifestyle that can and should reasonably change?
I'm with you, but let's just say it.
People, as a whole, don't want to make the changes we all know would make the world better.
People, as individuals? While there are exceptions, the reality is a classic tragedy of the commons. Individuals generally won't accept a short-term drop in their standard of living while watching their neighbors refuse to do the same.
It is what it is, frankly. We can and will change our lifestyles at the very last possible moment. Let's hope it's enough.
It's both, though. Yes, the Earth can support more humans with a lifestyle closer to that of the West in the 19th century than with a lifestyle closer to the the West in the 21st, but even in the 19th (and earlier) deforestation and the like were happening. And it's just reality that as societies prosper they use more resources per person. 50 years ago the vast majority of Chinese didn't use cars but walked and and bicycled. Now they are quite car dependent.
It's usually not the most frugal humans that want to defeat death.
I'm not sure that's an easy argument to hold up. Where would you draw the line on lifestyle that can and should reasonably change?
We've populated large portions of the planet that we really have no business living in without climate controlled indoor environments. HVAC is also a huge energy suck with all the externalities that come along with it. If we were to really want to cut energy use, for example, and climate control had to go we almost certainly couldn't continue to sustain as many people as we have today.
People have lived all over the planet without these things, I don't think you can say we have no business living there.
Think of the aboriginals and nomads roaming the deserts and the inuit in the icy north. All before hvac.
And hvac isn't really as much of an energy problem as heating is. Because when hvac is needed it is during a time of abundance of sunlight.
> Where would you draw the line on lifestyle that can and should reasonably change?
I'm with you, but let's just say it.
People, as a whole, don't want to make the changes we all know would make the world better.
People, as individuals? While there are exceptions, the reality is a classic tragedy of the commons. Individuals generally won't accept a short-term drop in their standard of living while watching their neighbors refuse to do the same.
It is what it is, frankly. We can and will change our lifestyles at the very last possible moment. Let's hope it's enough.
And the type of humans.