World population today: 8.0 billion
…
We need more land, houses, cars, energy, …
overfishing: https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/overfishing
Need to burn down the rainforests for cattle:
https://wwf.panda.org/discover/knowledge_hub/where_we_work/a...
Electricity generation with fossil fuels looks like it tripled:
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/world-electri...
I see no reason why we should specifically pursue growth, rather than a stable population. Short-term population decrease would even be a good thing, as the older and larger generations eventually pass on and their children and grandchildren have fewer children of their own.
https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization
“More than half of the world’s population now live in urban areas — increasingly in highly-dense cities. However, urban settings are a relatively new phenomenon in human history. This transition has transformed the way we live, work, travel and build networks.”
“by between 22% and 72% over the past decade. Legal and illegal logging and deforestation to make space for agriculture and urban development has already destroyed substantial areas of the butterflies’ winter shelter in Mexico and California, while pesticides and herbicides used in intensive agriculture across the range kill butterflies and milkweed, the host plant that the larvae of the monarch butterfly feed on.”
The population of Mexico has doubled since 1980 and the US has gone from 227 million to 340 million people
“If only the people in the Amazon chose not to burn down the forest for cattle”
“If only China and India didn’t burn so much coal”
“If only people didn’t eat so much fish”
What’s important is that people realize they are proposing solutions that sound good but are not helpful.
Half the Amazon will be torched before you realize this?
I'm saying we should price the externalities into the cost of beef. What other solution is there?