>>1375255>That 60 percent ruined the world for you?>>1375255>like malthus 500 years ago you're a fucking moron?malthus had no glimpse of what could capitalism, industrialization and tech could do with the earth.
if you wouldn't go insulting instead of researching a little maybe you could get my point, but meh.
seems that you don't understand how a population grows and behave in big numbers.
it's not the mere number of people that grows.
as this anon says
>>1375272 the standard of living is higher, but this is because markets have grown exponentially with the population growth. consumerism escalated (even the /out/ consumerism) and markets always offer in exceed of the actual target population size.
offer and production of goods and services escalated exponentially to the actual population numbers, and this always result in a growth of the consumer numbers of these goods and services.
so markets offer even more, so more consumers, etc, etc. sooner or later the wheel starts to go owt of axle. and is not that i'm anticapitalist, that's just the way things are.
for example, wherever you go on earth now you find garbage, from antartica to the most remote atolon in the pacific, from everest top to caves in cuba. (never been at the everest top but yes to antartica, cuba and the pacific).
and this is not because people is dirtier now than 80 years ago, but because there are more people (and so, more markets) producing exponentially bigger amount of garbage (and nowadays garbage is mostly plastic so non biodegradable) and getting to places where they didn't even dreamed to go before.
the problem is not always one and only, and the same goes with the solution. but to me, is undeniable that if we were 4 thousend millions instead of 8, you would find less people in the inca trail or the top of the everest.
