8,000,000,000 people!

[Draco-Onis]

And speaking of Mother Nature; Male fertility crash accelerating worldwide: study

The study found sperm counts fell by more than 51 percent between 1973 and 2018. And while sperm counts have been dropping for decades, the decline rate appears to be speeding up.

“I think it’s a crisis that we [had] better tackle now, before it may reach a tipping point which may not be reversible,” lead author Hagai Levine of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Hadassah Braun School of Public Health told The Guardian.

Levine added to The Times of Israel that the findings “serve as a canary in a coal mine. We have a serious problem on our hands that, if not mitigated, could threaten humankind’s survival.”

Depression, drugs, forever chemicals, pollution and obesity will do that, humans are very good at killing themselves in more ways than one.

[PACOX]

Toba is laughing at you...silly puny creature.

- - - Updated - - -

And speaking of Mother Nature; Male fertility crash accelerating worldwide: study

The study found sperm counts fell by more than 51 percent between 1973 and 2018. And while sperm counts have been dropping for decades, the decline rate appears to be speeding up.

“I think it’s a crisis that we [had] better tackle now, before it may reach a tipping point which may not be reversible,” lead author Hagai Levine of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Hadassah Braun School of Public Health told The Guardian.

Is that a really a problem, unless we're doing it to ourselves? Men produce the shit by the millions EVERY DAY and then it shoots it into a sock. Not exactly a finite resource. Survival and cultural pressure to pump out as many kids as possible have dropped. Women aren't going around saying I CAN'T FIND ANYONE TO FERTILIZE MY EGGS!

People are opting to have fewer babies and later. At some point, natural selection kicks in. What we don't want to be doing is poisoning ourselves though. Thats an important issue to tackle but not just because dudes are only shooting 30 MILLION swimmers instead of 50 MILLION.

We're kind of good at fu-- reproducing as far as apes go

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2596903/

- - - Updated - - -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enviro...-ion_batteries
Thats just Lithium ion batteries^.

What's the solution? More paper? Going to need a shitload more acres of tree farms and machines to cut and process them. Everything costs something. You can't recycle every atom. Shit runs out.

Yeah we have been around for a blink of an eye and in that time have created massive areas completely mined out of nearly every resource, areas so toxic we have to hire people to scare off animals from coming near it, dry lakes we emptied of water, and pollution up the wazoo. How long do you think humanity will last? If you want it to be over 1k more years we are def going to need to steal from the stars as well.

Disease and warfare are results of overpopulation. Much easier for diseases to spread with more people. Wars happen because someone doesn't have enough resources so they try to take another.\

Its important to look ahead, but I think you're focusing too much on problems we haven't approached yet. Some of this is like being worried about how to replace the wagon before you even know how to get a horse to pull it.

[Shadowferal]

Depression, drugs, forever chemicals, pollution and obesity will do that, humans are very good at killing themselves in more ways than one.

And of course the denial that problems exist to begin with...as proven by recent events.

[Xilurm]

I mean, the only reason why everyone is so mushed together is because they like to build everything in the same place. There's so much space.

As for resources, world hunger doesn't exist because there's too many people, it exists because someone with a lot of money wants it to.

[Edge-]

I mean, the only reason why everyone is so mushed together is because they like to build everything in the same place. There's so much space.

Practical logistics: Not everywhere is reasonably inhabitable, many places have greater value/utility either for their resources or for preservation as wild spaces. Sprawling spread is usually kinda pointless and wasteful, density rules.

[Shadowferal]

THE AMERICAN SOUTHWEST IS CALLING YOU!

...nevermind the lack of water.. no, really it's fine...seriously.

[BeepBoo]

Capitalism is antithetical to a prosperous, stable humanity.

Nah, even if presented a choice, 90% of the population would just choose whatever the cheaper solution was in the moment, not whatever is "sustainable."

Spend twice as much on a burger to have it sustainably farmed? Nah.

You'd have to convince the entirety of the population that they really need to suck it up and make the tougher more sustainable choices and just go with less out of life than they do... or you'd have to remove their choice in some form. Good luck on the former, and fuck off with the latter.

[Shadowferal]

Why do people choose the cheaper option? Hint: It's why capitalism is antithetical to prosperity.

Yep. We're talking greed here, and in my mind that doesn't just mean the bottom line, but also stratification of society. People oriented issues will always be irrelevant and business oriented issues will be enshrined as law. ("Corporate personhood" Corporate welfare, bribery as "freedom of speech," ect..)

[Paranoid Android]

I mean, the only reason why everyone is so mushed together is because they like to build everything in the same place. There's so much space.

As for resources, world hunger doesn't exist because there's too many people, it exists because someone with a lot of money wants it to.

Resources my person Resources..

Only finite resources and if people demand to live a certain lifestyle we cannot sustain. Many other big factors such as unfettered capitalism and more nations catching up.

- - - Updated - - -

Practical logistics: Not everywhere is reasonably inhabitable, many places have greater value/utility either for their resources or for preservation as wild spaces. Sprawling spread is usually kinda pointless and wasteful, density rules.

Oh and also if you believe in this thing called nature and ecosystem building everywhere and anywhere would likely cause it collapse on itself.

This is great image where the green images are the biomass for all wild animals where the rest if for human consumption and use.




https://twitter.com/WilliamJRipple/s...9Sv68qxpvRQ8BQ

[BeepBoo]

Why do people choose the cheaper option? Hint: It's why capitalism is antithetical to prosperity.

I legitimately don't know what you're trying to say or indicate here, but the reason most things are able to be made cheaper is because it's the easiest way to do something. If you're talking about exploitative labor of people, "green" ways of doing things don't magically get cheaper just because you start paying everyone more.

The price of the green solution goes up equally.

If you start trying to force externality costs into goods, that's effectively removing choice, because you're trying to encourage behavior and stop people from doing the easiest/cheapest thing by tacking on artificial costs that don't arise from the simple economics of the creation of the good.

As for the prosperity thing, that depends on what you consider the most prosperous living. I personally want to live in my own fucking castle, have my own mega yacht, my own plane, do fun shit like ski/eat out/lounge on a beach/etc every single day. Capitalism definitely makes that easier for me. I have more stuff here for my commensurate job and social standing than I would anywhere else in the world. I have a bigger house, fancier car, better computer, better tech, etc. All for cheaper prices. In addition, I get paid more here for the type of work I do than I would most other places, too. So, I get more money, I pay less taxes, and things are cheaper. Win-win-win.

Anywhere in the EU is vastly less prosperous for my tastes. About the only thing they have going for them over me that I'd want is cheaper health care, but realistically I don't give a shit because 1) I have excellent healthcare and it doesn't cost me an arm and a leg like some people seem to pay. 2) I don't actually use much healthcare because I'm not some unfortunate being with maintenance drug requirements or chronic illness.

[Shadowferal]

As for the prosperity thing, that depends on what you consider the most prosperous living. I personally want to live in my own fucking castle, have my own mega yacht, my own plane, do fun shit like ski/eat out/lounge on a beach/etc every single day. Capitalism definitely makes that easier for me.

You only get that crap in the US if you're born to the right parents these days.

[Elegiac]

I legitimately don't know what you're trying to say or indicate here, but the reason most things are able to be made cheaper is because it's the easiest way to do something. If you're talking about exploitative labor of people, "green" ways of doing things don't magically get cheaper just because you start paying everyone more.

The price of the green solution goes up equally.

If you start trying to force externality costs into goods, that's effectively removing choice, because you're trying to encourage behavior and stop people from doing the easiest/cheapest thing by tacking on artificial costs that don't arise from the simple economics of the creation of the good.

"Externality costs" are in fact real costs that arise from the simple economics of the creation of the good, you're just privileged enough to be insulated from them - insulation which is itself just as artificial as "tacking on externality costs".

Moreover, "goods being cheaper" is not automatically an indicator of improved quality of life for one simple reason: planned obsolescence. Cheaper goods tend to be significantly less durable, meaning that people ultimately need to buy more of them to the point there's not actually a net reduction in cost for the consumer; all the while generating vastly higher amounts of waste. "Green solutions" entail higher product durability which can and does ultimately save people money over the long term. See: Boots Theory.

The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.

[BeepBoo]

You only get that crap in the US if you're born to the right parents these days.

As opposed to anywhere else in the world where it's just not even a possibility or you STILL have to be born to the right parents (but the pool of "right" parents is just much smaller)?

The US has vastly more millionaires than anywhere else in the world. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that it's easier here than anywhere else.

[Elegiac]

As opposed to anywhere else in the world where it's just not even a possibility or you STILL have to be born to the right parents (but the pool of "right" parents is just much smaller)?

The US has vastly more millionaires than anywhere else in the world. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that it's easier here than anywhere else.

Or that the US's economic structure is better set up to consolidate money for the right families.

[Shadowferal]

The US has vastly more millionaires than anywhere else in the world. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that it's easier here than anywhere else.

It's nice to have a belief.

[Elegiac]

It's nice to have a belief.

I do love the implicit self-own when people insist that wealth is based on merit while not being mega-wealthy themselves.

[BeepBoo]

"Externality costs" are in fact real costs that arise from the simple economics of the creation of the good, you're just privileged enough to be insulated from them - insulation which is itself just as artificial as "tacking on externality costs".

Those "real costs" you're talking about are valued differently by each person, though. Also, being able to insulate yourself from them is just a benefit of having more resources at your disposal, so again, winners under capitalism have it easier when it comes to insulating than they would elsewhere in the world.

"Green solutions" entail higher product durability which can and does ultimately save people money over the long term.

You're not hearing me and are adding in things that don't need to be. When I say cheaper I mean cheaper for the exact same quality good.

Boots that last a long time are still cheaper here than elsewhere in the "civilized" world. Say a good solid pair of durable boots is like 600usd in canada. Here, it would be vastly less than that.

- - - Updated - - -

I do love the implicit self-own when people insist that wealth is based on merit while not being mega-wealthy themselves.

Who said anything about merit? I said EASY. It's easier here to take whatever wealth you have and find a way to exploit that.

Or that the US's economic structure is better set up to consolidate money for the right families.

I don't know what you're on about, but I'd say anyone in like the 75th percentile or better has a better life here in the US than elsewhere.

[Elegiac]

Those "real costs" you're talking about are valued differently by each person, though. Also, being able to insulate yourself from them is just a benefit of having more resources at your disposal, so again, winners under capitalism have it easier when it comes to insulating than they would elsewhere in the world.

Irrelevant. Your claim was that making people pay for externality costs they incur is bad because it's artificial when it's only as artificial as the ability to insulate yourself from that externality in the first place.

You're not hearing me and are adding in things that don't need to be. When I say cheaper I mean cheaper for the exact same quality good.

The only reason 'things being cheaper' is a point of discussion as it applies to green solutions is because of its adjacency to quality of life. So no, I'm not "adding things that don't need to be", you're employing a thought-terminating argument because the logical conclusion isn't convenient to your point.

- - - Updated - - -

Who said anything about merit? I said EASY. It's easier here to take whatever wealth you have and find a way to exploit that.

So why haven't you done that, then? Laziness?

I don't know what you're on about, but I'd say anyone in like the 75th percentile or better has a better life here in the US than elsewhere.

You saying it doesn't mean it's backed up by evidence, lol.

[BeepBoo]

Irrelevant. Your claim was that making people pay for externality costs they incur is bad because it's artificial when it's only as artificial as the ability to insulate yourself from that externality in the first place.

No, it's artificial because it's not what the price would be in truly free negotiating. It's someone else coming in and telling both parties they need to be concerned and account for something they honestly probably otherwise wouldn't.

The only reason 'things being cheaper' is a point of discussion as it applies to green solutions is because of its adjacency to quality of life. So no, I'm not "adding things that don't need to be", you're employing a thought-terminating argument because the logical conclusion isn't convenient to your point.

And my point is that I can afford better durable goods here more than I can anywhere else. So my quality of life is STILL better than it otherwise would be.

[Elegiac]

No, it's artificial because it's not what the price would be in truly free negotiating. It's someone else coming in and telling both parties they need to be concerned and account for something they honestly probably otherwise wouldn't.

Then it's not "truly free", is it? Because it were "truly free" it would entail giving all involved parties a seat at the table, and that includes the people who are bearing the costs written off as externalities.

And my point is that I can afford better durable goods here more than I can anywhere else. So my quality of life is STILL better than it otherwise would be.

And it would be even better if the industry norm was producing durable goods (and thus less waste) as a baseline. QED.