• masquenox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What standard of living do you consider “all things being equal”?

    I don’t consider “standards of living” - period.

    I consider this.

    • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s literally an article about how they don’t have enough water. Yes, the rich are using twice as much as the poor and it would go further if it was distributed more evenly but the fact remains that there’s a finite amount that is not sustainable beyond a certain population.

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This…

        All things being equal (and that’s the important factor) there is next-to-no chance of us ever reaching such a bizarre amount of people

        …just went completely over your head, didn’t it?

        • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          No? The article says rich people are using 2x as much water as poor people - 50% vs 23% and they are already having water problems. Assuming the water consumption was evened out this leaves the population room to go up no more than 4x what it is now even with equal consumption. That’s hardly out of the realm of possibility considering the population already has gone up 8x since 1950

          • masquenox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The article says rich people are using 2x as much water as poor people domestically.

            FTFY. That’s just household use, Clyde. We haven’t even started with the water usage that makes the rich rich - ie, the private ownership of industry and commerce (which, of course, externalizes the destruction of water resources).

            That’s hardly out of the realm of possibility considering the population already has gone up 8x since 1950

            That kind of population growth is a thing of the past. The only way to successfully reverse that would be by design - such as the measures taken by certain aspects of the US political establishment to enforce patriarchal norms through institutionalized violence (ie, the criminalization of women’s healthcare).

            • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Water used for industry is still going to be used regardless of who controls that industry. Poor people can be just as greedy as rich ones, they just don’t have a means to act on it.

              Population growth has slowed but it has not stopped. Even at 1 or 2 % per year it will be only a few generations before it becomes an issue. 1% of 6,000,000 people is a lot more than 1% of 600,000.

              • masquenox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Water used for industry is still going to be used regardless of who controls that industry.

                Absolutely not. Pretending that capitalism doesn’t work the way capitalism works is a certain dead-end for your argument.

                they just don’t have a means to act on it.

                That is one piss-poor justification for the status quo.

                Population growth has slowed but it has not stopped.

                The people at the top aren’t worried about population growth these days, Clyde - they are worried about population reversal. You wanna know why?

                • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Absolutely not. Pretending that capitalism doesn’t work the way capitalism works is a certain dead-end for your argument.

                  Wtf does that even mean?. The point is there will still be a demand for goods whether it’s produced by a farm/factory owned by one individual or a collective of workers. They’ll still be consuming the water.

                  That is one piss-poor justification for the status quo.

                  I’m not justifying anything. All I’m trying to do is explain to you that resources are finite and too many people will burn through them. If you don’t think poor people can be greedy and wasteful then I encourage you to get out more.

                  The people at the top aren’t worried about population growth these days, Clyde - they are worried about population reversal. You wanna know why?

                  The only reason I ever hear for that is from racists because it’s the white people that slowed down the most. Population projections for the world do not show a decline. Unless of course you take the lack of resources into account…

                  • masquenox@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Wtf does that even mean?

                    Pretending that production for profit and production for need is the same thing is fallacious - end of story.

                    All I’m trying to do is explain to you that resources are finite and too many people will burn through them.

                    You still haven’t managed to justify the right-wing trope of “overpopulation” - pretending that the vast majority’s consumption is (somehow) the problem isn’t proving it, merely regurgitating it.

                    the white people that slowed down the most.

                    Sooo… you have figured out that in a capitalist society access to women’s healthcare is merely another commodity - and, thanks to colonialist pillaging and repression, white people do tend to have more access to that commmodity?

                    You don’t say.

                    Population projections for the world do not show a decline.

                    No… it shows a trend towards stabilization - which, just by itself, demoslishes the entire concept of “overpopulation.”

                    Unless of course you take the lack of resources into account…

                    What lack of resources. Resources being hoarded by a capitalist elite was as true in 1950 as it was in 2023 - so how does that affect the trope you are trying to justify?