And I've never understood the "there's too many of us" approach. We could feed everyone in the world if there was the will to do so. We have the food, it's just really badly distributed.
Yes, we could likely also support billions more if everything was calculated on a utilitarian basis, of whatever products were optimally nutritious etc, but would you want to live in a world like that? (Think Mega City One, Resyc "we use everything except the soul" etc.)
I should add that I don't think of this in first / third world terms - e.g. some have argued that the UK population should be 30 million.
We have _masses_ of free space in the UK. Cities cover a small proportion of the land, and there's lots of farmland that's not being used any more.
I don't think it's a choice that we actually have to make, especially as we're below replenishment rate in Europe, and this seems to be a trend that countries follow as education levels rise.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
no subject
And I've never understood the "there's too many of us" approach. We could feed everyone in the world if there was the will to do so. We have the food, it's just really badly distributed.
no subject
I should add that I don't think of this in first / third world terms - e.g. some have argued that the UK population should be 30 million.
no subject
I don't think it's a choice that we actually have to make, especially as we're below replenishment rate in Europe, and this seems to be a trend that countries follow as education levels rise.