• Rhaedas@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Slowing, slowly. It should have hit the natural peak a long time ago, but then we learned to increase food production (at the cost of the environment).

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        Not specifically, it was the Haber-Bosch process to mass produce ammonia, enabling large scale fertilizer production that vastly changed how much yield we could get from crops and land area. The problem is that it tied us to fossil fuels to keep us fed as the population exploded. So it could be filed under his prediction, with the whole idea being what is sustainable. The argument could be made that even civilization at its basics isn’t sustainable in the very long run, as it requires a hospitable environment like the Holocene, which was a rarity in all of Earth history.

    • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      This increase is probably a bad thing. Its good in terms of all the people who got to live and be fed to be sure. However now we are dependent on an unsustainable food generating system. Any hiccup in that system could spell disaster for millions. But, be it as it may, everyone should be thankful for the plentiful food we do have. I made a conscious decision with my partner to have less kids than our parents did. I hope others think or thought the same. Yeah this trend is definitely not sustainable.