151
Are there enough resources in the world to allow everyone (or at least the vast majority) to live comfortably and happily? (pawb.social)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world
67 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I kinda went on a little research spree on economics this afternoon but at one point I figured it's probably good to know if it's possible for, say, at least 98% of people on earth to live a happy fulfilled life at all.

I know there's plenty of people who'd be more than happy to have literally nothing more than a house, food and water, but that still leaves a whole lot of people who want other things in life.

Do we have any metrics or data on wether the earth can sustain roughly 8 billion humans?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 39 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I don't agree with this.

We as a society are productive enough that we could absolutely work a lot less individually and still have all our needs and comforts met (which is what the OP was asking)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    don't forget the 1/3rd or sonething of all food harvested and cooked and packaged and shipped that gets thrown into dumpsters that the same billionare's stolen capital "safeguard" from those impoverished and starving. we could sustain more people by literally not throwing actual food into actual trash.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It's not just food, either. There's tons and tons of clothing and just "discontinued" products that are destroyed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Luxury goods are so wasteful. A $5,000.00 handbag costs as much to make as a $50.00 bag. It's all in the name.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes that extra money buys ethical labor practices, sustainable material sourcing, quality workmanship and item longevity. Not always, there are plenty of scammy "luxury" goods, but there are plenty of brands that are considered luxury simply because they aren't fast fashion and are buy-it-for-life quality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    While this is all theoretical, I agree with you. I think there are so many jobs that either currently don't need to exist or jobs that could be replaced with robots or AI in the near future that it frees up people to focus on culture and innovation. Instead of focusing on maximum output, we can create only what is needed and let people relax more and enjoy life. Imagine instead of 1 person working 40 hours a week, you have 4 people working 10 hours a week. Everyone can contribute and also have plenty of time for themselves. This of course is only possible with guaranteed food and shelter for all. But one can dream.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The lowest-hanging fruit are jobs that exist solely to work against other jobs, e.g. the entire health insurance industry vs. literally every medical professional.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •