• FantasmaNaCasca@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    There are more houses/apartments than people.
    There is more food going to the trash than what we need.

    It’s not that we have a lot of people. The problem is the greed of a few and the complacency/idiocy of the rest.

    • booly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yeah, having kids probably reduced my household resource consumption, compared to the dual income no kid lifestyle that my wife and I had before kids.

      Population growth is so far disconnected from resource consumption, because people’s resource consumption does not resemble a bell curve. A private jet produces more CO2 in an hour (about 2 tonnes) than the average Indian produces in a year (about 1.9 tonnes).

      The poor people having children aren’t destroying the planet. Rich people, childless or not, are. (And yes, I acknowledge that I fall under the “rich” category here.)

      • FantasmaNaCasca@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I don’t know you, but you probably don’t fall on the category of “rich” in my mind.

        Richer than an Indian farmer. Ok. I’m also rich then. I live in a house (not mine) and don’t go hungry.

        I don’t even consider billionaires on the scale…that is just an afront on humanity and shouldn’t exist.

        • booly@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          I think my personal resource consumption, if scaled up to the world population, would be devastating. That’s what I mean by categorizing myself in the “rich.” I might not be a billionaire, but I’m far, far above the global average, and still significantly above the national average for my nation.