With actual land use planning, the tension between production and conservation is a false dichotomy.
Second, agricultural products are already produced to meet needs
Third, the "reduce people" argument is almost always a losing one
Second, agricultural products are already produced to meet needs
Third, the "reduce people" argument is almost always a losing one
Japan, Italy and the US are "reducing the people" naturally. We're there already. Yes our pop happens to be "growing" but that's due to others exporting their excess to us.
How do you figure? Certainly we can't afford to keep emitting at the rate we're emitting, but if we transition to entirely clean energy and use our existing farmland more efficiently (rather than encroaching on important ecosystems) then I'm not sure what the remaining bottlenecks are. Lumber?
The big issue with the future is that China and India was to be first world countries with first world luxuries.
India is currently 1.3 billion people and still growing 1-2% per year.
China is currently 1.4 billion people. Still growing .3% per year (US is .4%)
Dismissing first world population growth as "just being overflow" / immigration ignores the fact that people that immigrate to the US will quickly start consuming resources like an American.
Population growth doesn't matter that much. What really matters is the resource consumption rates of the population.
The environmental future is basically a conflict between India and China aspiring to Western resource consumption rates and luxury, and us praying they figure out how to do it sustainably.
Otherwise: WAR.