• sexy_peach@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’m not surprised. It would probably take some collaboration, so it’s not necessarily going to happen.

  • Thorry84@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Well it would be if that were the goal. But the real goal is to make rich people even more rich. And as always: Number must go up!

    • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Probably not because that 30% is an average of different resources.

      For example. Let’s say you have two resources:

      • A - 10% of the current production of A is enough for the current pops
      • B - 50% of the current production of B is enough for the current pops

      Both average to 30%. If you multiply the population by 3, you still have a surplus of A, but now there isn’t enough B.

      Another concern is that increasing the population so much would force unsustainable approaches to resource extraction. In other words: 30 billion people living fine and dandy for a generation or two, and then their descendants living in a hellhole.

  • Commiunism@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Almost as if commodity production-based economies aren’t there to provide for the people but to make profits and waste resources. It’s a shocker

  • MacroCyclo@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    The headline is a bit misleading. The authors give a range from 30-44%.

    Very interesting conclusions on economic growth and extreme poverty. When an economy grows, the basic necessities might become too expensive for the poorest in the country.