[kickling]

I disagree, it depends on the lifestyle of the person. The richest 10% are responsible for 52% of carbon emissions[1]. If the only way to have a good life is to live like the richest 10% (or 50%) one could say we are too many people, but that does not have to be true, especially not in the future.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/worlds-r...

[giantg2]

As societies become developed the resource consumption will increase. That metric of richest 10% includes the global population making over $35k - generally people living a modern lifestyle. Other countries are moving toward this modern lifestyle too. Look at India's and China's development over the past few decades - electronics, vehicles, air conditioning, etc. I don't see people willingly giving up those things.

The concern over CO2 is only a small part of the issue. You have the mining, refining, manufacturing, trash, housing, etc. Arable land is shrinking, trash output is high and takes up land, water scarcity is expected to be a major issue in the next 30 year - especially for agricultural areas like the western and middle of the US that use groundwater faster than it replenishes.

[rcMgD2BwE72F]

>As societies become developed the resource consumption will increase.

That was true for a long time, but not anymore, because resource consumption turned into over-consumption. We've been hitting limits pretty hard for quite some time (cf https://ipbes.net/global-assessment)

Development can't be becoming more unsustainable in an increasingly unsustainable world (like drug use does not extend beyond overdose).

Either societies will find ways to develop themselves differently, or they'll stop developing at all.

[giantg2]

Or they will take the resources from others via conflict. This has been the historical trend.