This type of density of life was probably most of earth before humans changed things.
Unfortunately, non-anthropogenic climate change, not humans, was what wiped out most of that life.
I wish so dearly there was a way to let earth reproduce her fruits that didn’t involve destroying humanity.
This winter Brussels Airlines made 3,000 unnecessary flights just to maintain their airport spots.
We certainly have a lot of efficiency gains to make first with regards to our consumption before looking at the sheer number of people we have to feed
I totally agree. And it's important to remember that, at least in the US, the airline industry is one of the most heavily subsidized industries
We went from a western world where one salary could support a partner and 3 children, to a world where to two full-time salaries are barely enough for one child.
And where one salary is being soaked up on child-care fees much of the time...
This is an exceptional time in history that required most of the world to be in a broken state (WW2/post-colonialism) while the people you describe benefited from this arrangement. Now that this arrangement is going away, reality is setting in.
Women in the 1800s had an average of ~3.5 children that lived past 5 (about 4.5 children total, but child mortality was much higher in the 1800s). We're presently hovering a little under 2. The 1950s did have a spike up to ~2.5, but was still lower than the 1800s.
Small families are an oddity in human history. "Support" also meant something very different back then too, though. People still might be able to support 3.5 children on a single salary if they were also willing to live by 1800s standards.
People are currently able to. There are populations in the US where some demographics do have higher averages and definitely there are individual families where people do have 4 children. It's not common, but not too rare either and they aren't "affluent". Many are the opposite of affluent.
Maybe the threat of a viable alternatibe was keeping things in check?
But then the people that depended on those unsustainable feeding capacity increases will have a hard time finding food.
But please remember things are way better now than they used to be, pre-industrialization was not the utopia many think.
What about love? Do you think a chimp mother loves it's chimp child? Do you think that is pointless too?
However in the end us humans have the ability to study these situations over long periods of time, and we know how harmful biodiversity loss can be to our own species as well as to others. These are values we cant assume isn't as deeply held within the animal/plant/fungi kingdoms
Yeah, please forgive my sarcasm first, then imagine we'd somehow send a probe to an exoplanet and discover it to be full of life. But it only has equivalents of giraffes, carp, magpies, ants and so on, but not a single being that could be considered human-like that might be able to, say, invent the automobile or something like that. Sure we'd want our money back for that pointless probe?
That said, the planet’s ecological health was indisputably better before the industrial revolution.
Things sucked for humans in a lot of ways, but almost every other species was in a much better place.
> If heat death is inevitable, nothing really “matters”.
I never understand how, for people who say this, whether things go on forever the same (or slow down in trillions of years, or something else,) affects whether things matter here and now. How would anything be any different if things were going to go on forever the same?
What kind of ideal universe would you like for it to seem like "things really matter"?
It seems similar to (what seem to me mistaken) ideas of life being meaningless if it's not eternal, or if there's no god, or if the universe is so huge etc.. I don't see how anything of those things would change the here and now, or the significance of things.
For whatever it’s worth, I enjoy my life, and I don’t really care if it “matters”. It’s a lot more fun to just follow the thread than worry how my short time here fits into time scales orders of magnitude longer than my lifespan.
The Ross Sea, by the way, has had its protections undermined by China for the benefit of its commercial fishing enterprises.
> In October 2014, the MPA proposal was again defeated at the CCAMLR by votes against from China and Russia. At the October 2015 meeting a revised MPA proposal from the US and New Zealand was expanded with the assistance of China, who however shifted the MPA's priorities from conservation by allowing commercial fishing.
@dang: Not unrelated. Not flame bait. Not a generic tangent. Please unflag.
China tightens sustainability rules for its notorious fishing fleet -
China's Distant Waters Fleet Raises Overfishing Concerns -