274
The absolute state of online housing discourse
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
274 points (81.9% liked)
Political Memes
5387 readers
1863 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
There's plenty of land. Consider that in 1930, Germany had 139 people per km^2, France had something around 65 people per km^2. The US today has only 38 per km^2. But the German or French citizen in 1930 didn't use quite so many single use plastics.
That's pretty idiotic. We don't have a shortage of land. We have a shortage of land within a reasonable commuting distance of job centers.
Which is then wasted on urban sprawl and parking lots. We don't have a land problem or an overpopulation problem. We have a sustainability problem.
Each human needs a LOT of land to live to their fullest.
Do you want to live like in the 30s only to house more people?
Also it's an unsustainable point of view. If you defend letting people forever grow there's going to be a hard natural stop to that. Because at some point nature will make you stop.
I support a stable point of view. One billion of human beings on earth. Plenty space for us and for nature, les pollution, less emissions. Lots of chances for massive natural reserves...
1 billion people living unsustainably is still unsustainable. Birth rates in the most unsustainable countries are dropping, and this is ultimately a good thing, but it's insufficient on its own.
By simple math each of those 1 billion people should be able to live with 10 times more resources at hand that if we had 10 billion people.
I don't think there's a way to live better without resource consumption and environmental damage. So the question keeps being the same. More people living worse or less people living better.