I think that kind of sentiment is becoming more accepted and I have to agree. It is almost like a taboo subject to account for humanity as a species and strictly in terms of numbers. I think the harrowing facts in the book, Ten Billion shed some light on exactly how our over populated race is impacting the ecosystem and other species. It definitely is not sustainable at our current blind pace of existence.
RE: The Anthropocence - The Academic Quandry & Debate
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The Anthropocence - The Academic Quandry & Debate
Here's how I think it's going to play out.
At first, humanity will keep consuming more and more resources. Meanwhile, the sustainability development is trailing behind, far far behind.
At one point, the resources will start to deplete and we'll have no choice but to turn on each other, fighting for the remaining resources.
Them infighting and starvation will steadily decrease our number until, eventually, we're down to a more reasonable number.
At which point the the sustainability development will manage to catch up and then.. happily ever after, I guess, having learned our lesson?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is precisely what has been happening and it actually drives military doctrine and even foreign policy since the objectives are now predominantly acquisition of resources. Usually third world and emerging economies are always the victim. John Perkins who wrote his Confessions of an Economic Hitman confirmed these types of policies which were at the forefront of transnational corporations. Essentially the world and our economic model is one of aggressive dominance and control.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit