daniskarma

What about people not living in cities?

Public transport for low density areas is terrible. So or you are forcing people to live in cities (where public transport can be good) or you are forcing people to endure terrible public transport.

Also forcing dietary changes on people, something as big as preventing people to eat or use animal products...

I just don't think forcing that on people would be clever. I know how I would react if anyone were to impose that way of living to me, and I can only assume that many people would react the same way. Specially if I would have to endure all that only to accommodate a growing population when we could just try to aim for a lower stable number of total human population (a number that will need to be reached regardless at some point. Infinite growth is unfeasible).

I have a kitchen, a living room and two bedrooms. I do remote work so one of the bedrooms have a double purpose as guess room and office.

I would love to have at least, another room dedicated to storage. And second room so I could have a hobby/office room and a guess room separately.

Also I would love to have a garden.

I spent a lot of time at home, between remote work and hobbies, so I would like to have a more spacious living space. The more time you spent on a place the bigger it probably needs to be.

Me choking on a grape and doing random noises I thought they had no meaning:

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

At this point I would only try something untraceable like Monero. I don't want the moral police to come knocking to my house saying that I bought something against the glory of the Lord.

Insert meme of calendar guy turning 2020 page to 1984.

Lot of things. Here in Spain I have a big box of sweetener little packages that have "STEVIA" la el big but it's 96% eritriol and only 3% stevia.

It's a great place to be.

Even for such an orange looking piece of shit the judicial process should be fair, and everyone should be innocent until proven guilty.

AFAIK there's pay processing business that will do nsfw transactions but they ask for extra money.

I'm not mad. I will just not allow anyone to reduce my living standards because they don't want to use a rubber.

A export model is not bad. I just said that's unreasonable to think that all the world could follow that model. Because then "who would we export to?". It's like liberals thinking that the tax rate in a tax heaven are proof that every country could have those tax haven rates. Good for them, that the model worked, but for some country to export other country needs to import, that's all. Chinese economic growth have been very linked to being the world factory. That's great, but it could not be assumed that all the world could just do the same.

Reading the study I get the following remarks:

Living space, not great. 60m2 for a 4 person family. That's tight. I live alone in a 90m2 house and I could use more space, do they want me to live in a 15m2 house or do they want to force to share living space? Sorry but I won't compromise there. I prefer people having less children that me having to live as ants in a colony.

That is just a personal pick with the DLS minimum requirements chosen.

But still forgetting that. The reasoning is extremely faulty. Most of their argumentation heavy lifting is just relied to Millward-Hopkins (2022) paper establishing that 14.7 GJ per person anually is enough. That paper is just a work of fantasy. For reference, and taking the same paper numbers. Current energy usage (with all the exiting poverty) is 80 GJ/cap. Paleolitic use of energy was 5 GJ. Author is proposing that we could live ok with just triple paleolitic energy. That paper just oversees a lot of what people need to live in a function society to get completely irrational numbers on what energy cap we could assume to produce a good life.

Then on materials used. The paper assumes all the world shifting to vegetarian diet, everyone living on multiresidential buildings, somehow wood as the main building material (I don't know how they even reconcile that with multiresidential buildings...). And half of cars usage shifting to public transport How to achieve this in rural areas it's not mentioned at all).

A big notice needs to be done that both papers what are actually doing is basically taking China economy (greatly praised in the introduction) and assuming that all the world should live like that. And yes, probably the world could have 30 billion inhabitants if we accept to be all like China, who would we export to achieve that economic model if we all have a export based economy? who knows, probably the martians. And even then, while a lot of "ticks" on what a decent level of life quality apparently seems to be ticked, many people in western countries would not consider that quality life, but a very restrictive and deprived life standard.

I'm still on the boat the people having less children is a better approach to great lives without destroying the planet. At some point a cap on world population need to be made, it really add that much that the cap is 30 billion instead of maybe 5 billion? It's certainly not a cap in the number of social iterations a person can have, but numbers give for plenty of friends. And at the end it's not even a cap on "how many children" can people have, as once the cap is reach the number of children will be needed to cap the same to achieve stability. It's just a cap on "when people can still be having lots of kids". Boomer approach to "let's have children now" and expect that my kids won't want to have as many children as I have now.

Also another big pick I have with the article is that it blames the current level of inefficiency to private jets, suvs, and industrial meat. But instead of making the rational approach of taking thise appart from the current economy and calculate what the results will be. Parts from zero building the requirements out of their list. Making the previous complaint about those luxury items out of place completely. On a personal note I would reduce or completely eliminate many of those listed "super luxury" items. But I have the feel (just a feel because neither me not the author have studied this) that the results of global energy and material usage won't drop that much, certainly not at the levels proposed by the authors with their approach.

Disengage