zlacker

[parent] [thread] 8 comments
1. lanceb+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-01-28 08:39:05
Is that actually true? Nature has a very low capacity per area for "wild humans". I don't think the planet would support anywhere near 8 billion "wild" (hunter-gatherer) humans.
replies(4): >>defros+H1 >>okr+o4 >>Aerroo+N4 >>Errati+IG1
2. defros+H1[view] [source] 2024-01-28 08:56:54
>>lanceb+(OP)
It's actually true that some blame can be apportioned to fossil fuel companies that have actively pushed "more fuel consumption" since the 1970s, the Koch Group in particular funde a slew of think tanks to poo-poo and crash and burn any grass roots public transport movements in the USofA during the past 50 odd years.

It's less true that a valid comparison should be "if not modern 21st Century life then hunter gather".

There's a middle ground more agrarian, less hunter, lifestyle that supported a large population in the past and can likely support a larger population than Victorian times if farming | mining switched across to renewables (electric | hydrogen) instead of fossil fuels - we've learnt a lot about efficiencies in the past century, it's a matter of application and less consumption now, certainly time for less greenhouse gas being released.

replies(1): >>Errati+2H1
3. okr+o4[view] [source] 2024-01-28 09:24:25
>>lanceb+(OP)
Nah, its not true. Look at the overpopulated areas, look at how dirty the rivers are and how much trash is at the shore. Why should they care? Most of the people do not own anything. And owning something is considered evil as of late on HN. There is some socialist government in place and most likely it takes years to open a business when it is not a soup kitchen. Ah, business, thats evil now too.
4. Aerroo+N4[view] [source] 2024-01-28 09:27:53
>>lanceb+(OP)
It's estimated that we couldn't support much more than half the world population without the Haber-Bosch process. Industrial fertilizers are just that important. With hunter gatherers you'd be talking about orders of magnitude fewer people.
replies(2): >>defros+B5 >>Errati+9C1
◧◩
5. defros+B5[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-28 09:35:33
>>Aerroo+N4
Probably best to focus on decoupling from fossil fuels.

    The Haber-Bosch process is the primary method in producing ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen. Ammonia produced, utilized mainly as fertilizers, currently responsible for approximately 1.8% of carbon dioxide global emissions 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/haber-bosch...

Yes, green ammonia is a thing - not yet at scale but there are plans afoot, funded by resource billionaires, to make industrial ammonia w/out the greenhouse gas ommissions.

https://fortescue.com/what-we-do/green-energy-research/green...

◧◩
6. Errati+9C1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-28 21:10:06
>>Aerroo+N4
We should have never let the population levels grow havoc as the H&B process was introduced.

We reduced famines for a few centuries or less while the population in the most polluting countries exploded. Now, we risk famines and a possible slow death due to extreme drought due to the climate change created by the fossil Fuel Industry, in the billions

The implementation of the H&BP was irresponsible and reckless.

replies(1): >>Aerroo+rh2
7. Errati+IG1[view] [source] 2024-01-28 21:44:50
>>lanceb+(OP)
Why should there be eight billion people?

Wild humans would pollute less exactly because they are limited by their environment instead of torturing from cradle to the shop billions of chicks and piglets every year

◧◩
8. Errati+2H1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-28 21:48:05
>>defros+H1
> It's less true that a valid comparison should be "if not modern 21st Century life then hunter gather".

There are billions of shades of grey, like, for example, living like before the 2000’s, when the massive production of plastic crap in China produced pollution levels to skyrocket.

The alternative meant paying wages in the west

◧◩◪
9. Aerroo+rh2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-29 03:29:33
>>Errati+9C1
I would argue the opposite. It has led to the greatest improvement of human life in history and prehistory. It's one of the cornerstones of our technological progress. It has staved off immense amounts of suffering. Even if it doesn't last it was worthwhile, because we at least have a chance to deal with future problems like climate change. Staying as a pre-industrial society would never have given us this chance.
[go to top]