[Daishiman]

> Different day, same Malthusian bullshit.

We are currently experiencing a human-induced mass extinction event and reduction of biodiversity comparable to the largest natural catastrophes in the planet. The way things are going, by the end of the century most of the large mammalian predators will be definitely extinct, and if carbon emissions are not reduced by the end of the century, by which we should become a carbon-negative society, the oceans will not be able to support most of the base of its food chain.

I question your valuation of human society above the base of the biological systems that support its very existence. A large population living in a humongous wasteland is of dubious utility for its inhabitants.

I reckon you haven't been able to see the true impacts of humans on most of the ecosystems in the planet. Ultimately, I think you're confusing density with population; a large population is not a requirement for a dense population. Furthermore, the percentage of the population that contributes to innovation is a very, very restricted subset of it.

[revelation]

I don't get it. The ecosystem is not a constant system. It is summary randomness, guided by evolution. Whatever you are trying to preserve, be assured new randomness will happily take its place.

[wtracy]

The current randomness supports human life. I'm not so sure that whatever replaces it will too.

[sliverstorm]

You mean the way mold is happily taking the place of entire coral reefs? Biodiversity is not just an ethical concern; biodiversity is useful to humankind.

[Daishiman]

If your randomness consists of oceans of jellyfish and insects as the most complex land animals, sure. If you want to actually get to witness the full extent of birds, mammals, and large reptiles, no amount of evolution will supplant those for several millions of years.

[kenster07]

Consumerism dramatically amplifies all said effects. Many of these issues would be solved for a long time by simply mitigating that mindset.