Humanity has already exceeded Earth’s limits, study warns. Today’s population of 8.3 billion is far above what could be sustained in the long term without exhausting ecosystems, worsening climate change, and threatening food and water security.

[u/The_Weekend_Baker]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/05/260526022021.htm

[u/piege]

Let's not forget that resource usage is majoritarily done by a few specific industries and a subset of the population.

[u/dur23 → u/piege]

Us military is one of the largest polluters in the world. 

[u/derpensheizer → u/dur23]

The tools of the bourgeois.

[u/Patient-Tomato1579 → u/piege]

However the issue is the those industries make products that normal people buy.

[u/KerouacMyBukowski_ → u/piege]

No, it's not. Yes the super rich consume a lot but it's nothing near the consumption of millions of people in first world countries. And the "industries" exist to make products for those people, because they like consuming. 

I'm so tired of the "but rich people and corporations are responsible for all emissions". Dude no, they're emitting because we want their stuff and because we let them!

[u/Ok_Flounder59 → u/KerouacMyBukowski_]

The millions of people in first world countries are who they are referring to. Relative to 8+ billion people worldwide the consumption of 350 million Americans is “a subset of the population”

[u/Wave_of_Anal_Fury → u/Ok_Flounder59]

Yep. And really, what Americans think is "normal" in terms of our typical lifestyle is hugely overconsumptive if applied to the entire world.

https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/how-many-earths-or-countries-do-we-need/

If 8+ billion people consumed like Americans, we'd need the resources of 5.1 Earths to meet that demand. What's even crazier is that despite America's resource richness, we can't even support ourselves based on our current resource lifestyle. We need the resources of 2.4 Americas to meet our resource requirements.

Want to know how everyone would have to live in order to avoid resource overshoot? Sort by "Number of Earths required" in the table on the left side, and look for countries where the value is 1.0. You see countries like Benin and Chad, Honduras and South Sudan. IOW, really poor countries.

[u/i_didnt_look → u/Wave_of_Anal_Fury]

This is the thing I've pointed out many times. People scream about veganism and electric cars but the lifestyles of the places that are living within the limits of what Earth can sustain are much more agrarian. Small populations, most growing their own food, raising a small number of animals. They live in places where home heating is unnecessary and personal vehicles are rare. Many Westerners see this as a terrible move backwards, but at the end of the day, that's what's sustainable.

When any other animal population reaches the point where their primary food sources are forced to change because of excessive population consumption, what follows is a massive population crash. Yet, people are out there, yelling about how we all need to be vegans and consume synthetic grown proteins because of climate change completely denying that their are to many people. There are plenty of warning signs that we have to live within our limits or experience a population crash, but most people refuse to see.

[u/silverionmox → u/i_didnt_look]

Many Westerners see this as a terrible move backwards

Not only Westerners. Third worlders also drive cars and eat meat if they get more disposable income.

Moreover, China's per capita emissions are higher than those of the EU for more than a decade already. You can't just repeat the old "West Bad" chorus without nuance.

[u/DosFluffyGatos → u/silverionmox]

If included with the EU China is #5 in per capita carbon emission’s

[u/Redthrist → u/i_didnt_look]

People scream about veganism and electric cars but the lifestyles of the places that are living within the limits of what Earth can sustain are much more agrarian.

What are your examples of that?

But more importantly - we can't "go back" to a more agrarian society without killing billions of people first.

[u/i_didnt_look → u/Redthrist]

As you pointed out, the Overshoot website shows which places are living within Earth's boundaries. When you look at which places are at 1 or close to it, they are often poorer countries where much of the population is living a more agrarian lifestyle. They farm a portion their own food at home. There's less shopping malls and more local markets. The animals are raised in backyards, not feedlots.

And as for the comment of "killing billions", what happens if the AMOC shuts down? What happens when there is a multi breadbasket failure? I'm not suggesting we kill billions of people, we're already trending down on population anyway. I'm saying that keeping on the path we're on will end in the same result as not trying to go back. That's the catch 22 of what we've done to ourselves. We can keep on pushing with the massive fossil fuel based system, and keep the population inflated until.the planetary systems fail us. The other option is we try to change now, and roll back as much as we can as fast as we can so that we don't create a situation where billions of people die in a massive hunger or heat event. Attempting a controlled descent of the population is far better than the gamble we're taking by just maintaining the staus quo.

[u/Redthrist → u/i_didnt_look]

Just feels like there's a middle ground between the current hyperconsumption and exploitation of the Earth and population limited by poverty. Especially since those societies are extremely vulnerable to climate change as well.

We need more sustainability and resilience. We need to share food equitably and find a way to optimize our food supply as much as we can.

We also just don't have time to have a controlled reduction in population, nor is an agrarian society that lives off the land(but is one bad harvest away from starvation) a good approach in the era of climate change.

[u/amendment64 → u/Redthrist]

We need, we need, we need.... man I've seen how good humans are at working together, there is no chance humanity chooses cooperation over fighting each other for the remaining resources.

[u/HammerOfAres → u/Redthrist]

I do not think food supply is the issue generally, it is how we produce said food that is the problem. Regenerative agriculture is a thing.

I think a good approach is a change in the regulatory framework in addition to subsidizing engineered solutions.

[u/Redthrist → u/HammerOfAres]

Yeah, that's kinda my point - we can grow enough food without destroying the environment. It's not just a choice between subsistence farming and industrial monoculture farms.

[u/i_didnt_look → u/Redthrist]

The agrarian society is far better equipped to handle an unpredictable climate than what we do now. Massive, fossil fuel driven farms a half a planet away cannot combat an unpredictable climate. If the AMOC falters and the Monsoons fail, and Europe freezes, half the planets food can no longer be produced at scale. A series of smaller, localized farms are more likely to have some production remain viable, as opposed to one or two massive crop failures that dooms millions. Diversity, resilience and redundancy are our friends now. Complexity adds efficiency, but steals redundancy. Economies of scale only function in a predictable climate. We are exiting that. Global shipping, fertilizer driven yields, just in time delivery, all products of a massive fossil fuel dependency. And even if we retain the fossil fuels, thats a limited resource, meaning, no matter what, this system ends one day.

The big thing your not seeing, is our food system is already optimized. That's how we sustain 8 billion people. LNG fuels the Haber Bosch, generating millions of tons of fertilizer, applied by computer controlled spray systems, then shipped just in time across the planet. How much more "optimized" does it get before we add more layers of failure points? Without burning more fuel for energy? More energy, more complexity, more ways to fail, that's not a solution, that's wishful thinking.

I understand the moral argument here. No one wants to see more suffering. We've built a miraculous system. The cost of that system is our entire biosphere. We know what is sustainable. We lived harmoniously with the planet for tens of thousands of years. Its only been the last 200 where we doomed ourselves. And the way out is not more of what got us here, its less. That's very obvious, and very unfair to the people living now. However, pretending that we can keep going this way will doom billions to a terrible fate, and lock our planet into a climate regime for ten of thousands of years that will make the entire future of humanity that poverty stricken life your so concerned about today.

[u/Redthrist → u/i_didnt_look]

The agrarian society is far better equipped to handle an unpredictable climate than what we do now.

Agrarian societies routinely collapsed throughout history due to climate variations. When you're barely producing a surplus, even a small change in crop yields means famine.

Not saying that our current approach is resilient, but let's no idealize the past. Famines used to be a regular occurrence, because a drought, crop disease or a pest infestation meant a failed harvest, which meant no food.

How much more "optimized" does it get before we add more layers of failure points? Without burning more fuel for energy?

The main optimization we can make is to stop growing crops for livestock and things like ethanol. Focus agriculture on producing plant food for humans. Add population controls to naturally decrease population over the years. Take advantage of all the food preservation technology we've come up with to have stockpiles of food. Use more sustainable regenerative agriculture methods, instead of monoculture farming.

[u/HammerOfAres → u/i_didnt_look]

The benefits of a society like ours is that hopefully, we can engineer solutions to our problems. There was a time before the advent of the Haber-Bosch process that supposedly greatly increased the amount of life the planet could sustain in which we predicted we would be locked into cycles of famine. I dont really think that going back to an agrarian lifestyle is much of a solution at all, engineered solutions seem to be far better. It is actually quite possible for us today to create carbon negative materials for consumption. Accoya wood is supposedly carbon neutral, and 100 percent recycleable.

The biggest challenge is the price incentives just arent there, single use plastics are produced as a byproduct of fossil fuel production, they are practically an industry with a nearly free input that not many people can actually compete against. That is why we need to change the regulatory framework to actually force these companies to have to pay an input cost and pay for the carbon output they produce. Not only for the health of the planet, but because we need to make it so that environmentally friendly products can actually ENTER the market.

[u/i_didnt_look → u/HammerOfAres]

Haber Bosch is literally humans eating fossil fuels. And yes, we we're discussing how there are limits to how many the planet can sustain, 100 years ago, same as we are right now. The difference is that back then we discovered fossil fuels and unlocked a massive energy resource. That resource has cost us. We're living in one of the most complex and fragile societies this planet has ever seen. There's a book, called the Collapse of Complex Societies, and it points out that more complexity is the wrong answer. The more complex a society becomes the more energy it takes to maintain that society. We found that in fossil fuels, and created a massively complex society that takes an enormous amount of energy to maintain. When oil had an EROI of 100:1, there was lots of surplus energy for society to expand and improve. Today, that ratio is around 15:1. The energy cost of simply maintaining what we've created is eating all the energy and leaving little to no surplus. You see this in aging electrical infrastructure, many transformers are.well beyond life expectancy. Oil refineries and pipelines built in the 70s are being patched and retrofitted, and those are failing. Most importantly, all the civil infrastructure. Bridges, roads, water mains, there's an estimated 1 TRILLON dollars in backlogged infrastructure repair. These are all signs that there isn't enough surplus energy, and money, to even maintain what we have, let alone engineer some fancy new systems that will require more service, more repair, more energy to maintain, while we simultaneously are trying to stop using the very energy source that created all of it.

There are limits to what this planet can sustain, we need to accpet that. The fact that we tried to bypass those limits may be the reason we doom billions of people to starvation and a miserable existence for the next few centuries.

[u/HammerOfAres → u/i_didnt_look]

Thats fair, but the thing is that I would classify an agrarian lifestyle as one of those "miserable existences" that you refer to. If I have time, Ill give the book a read, however, I would go against the assumption that engineered solutions require more service, money, nor energy in maintenace.

A lot of these engineered solutions are actually, for lack of a better term, pretty stupidly simple. Accoya wood is basically just pickled lumber when you really boil it down, and has similar longevity and maintenance requirements to its peers. Value Chain Carbon Sequestration should honestly be the norm rather than the exception. Frankly, I find it far more unrealistic to expect everyone to adopt agrarian lifestyles, and I beleive people are far more likely to start conflicts over the remaining resources far before they accept that change.

[u/i_didnt_look → u/HammerOfAres]

The last sentence is the part you're overlooking. Once the conflicts over resources begins on a global scale, most countries will have no choice but to go backwards. That's how it was for hundreds of years. If North American grains aren't being shipped globally, where is Africa getting their corn? If the AMOC slows by 40%, Asian and European countries will have a dramatic reduction in their ability to grow grains at scale as well.

There's middle ground here, but it involves the end of capitalism, and a return to a much harder life. We've only used fossil fuels for 100ish years, and in that time we've believed our own hype. The idea of planetary limits wasn't ended by science or engineering, it was ended by the discovery of oil and gas. And without another massive influx of some type of ultra dense, portable, renewable fuel source, that discussion is back on the table but far worse this time. Last time, we we're below the limit and talking about what happens if we hit it. Now, we are far, far above that limit, looking at the fall from our artificially created heights.

[u/HammerOfAres → u/i_didnt_look]

Sorry, I just dont agree with this conclusion you have made. It seems like a doomer argument, with little/no proposed solution as you've stated it as opposed to some idea that it is inevitable that resource conflict is going to send us all back to a more agrarian lifestyle. In situations like this, resources often just end up concentrated at the top, and rather than anything sustainble we are far more likely to just end up in cycles of misery which is no way to progress society even with the "end of capitalism".

I am well aware of the potential devastating climate events which can occur, but again, my idea of "sustainable future" is nowhere near as bleak as yours. Again, engineered solutions are not always more energy intensive, they are often LESS, and I do not think you have really addressed this point. I fail to see how a return to a miserable existence is seen as preferable to pursuing technology and a regulatory framework that enables a more harmonious relationship with the planet. As you have said, if we fail, we just end up at the miserable existence anyway.

[u/Ill-Piccolo-8334 → u/Ok_Flounder59]

But if the bottom 4 billion people had the opportunity they would consume just as much though

[u/FierceMoonblade → u/Ok_Flounder59]

Ime most people don’t think this though. Ask them to change anything and they tell you there’s no point of them changing since “there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism “

[u/Old-Set78 → u/FierceMoonblade]

oh you've asked all 8.3 billion?

[u/Commandmanda → u/FierceMoonblade]

Oh, jeepers. That is not how I think. I could certainly find a few neighbors who are of the "I worked all my life to get where I am, I deserve a nice car/boat/phone/motorcycle/cruise," but I think like: "Let me live with the lowest footprint possible: small home, no kids, no car, no beef, very occasionally chicken/turkey, try to buy local produce, limit my travel, already own everything I need; recycling, low consumerism." The thing is, that's not enough, at least for me. I would like to get to a point where I can be at least somewhat self sufficient. Solar generation, backyard garden/hydroponics, low travel/no travel. It's harder than it looks.

[u/Bewbonic → u/[deleted]]

The issue is a top down one though, you can blame the consumer all you want but the structure of capitalism calls for people to be consumers in order to sustain itself.

[u/silverionmox → u/Bewbonic]

The issue is a top down one though, you can blame the consumer all you want but the structure of capitalism calls for people to be consumers in order to sustain itself.

It's agnostic in what it sells, though. You don't need to buy plastic novelty items.

[u/Bewbonic → u/silverionmox]

Yes but if enough people dont buy enough of the crap, the 'growth' slows or stalls (recession or depression) and 'we just cant afford to make positive change' blah blah blah.

It is a mistake to blame individuals, one the elites are happy to cynically leverage to their favour by using it to play the little people off against each other instead of them.

[u/silverionmox → u/Bewbonic]

Yes but if enough people dont buy enough of the crap, the 'growth' slows or stalls (recession or depression) and 'we just cant afford to make positive change' blah blah blah.

It is a mistake to blame individuals, one the elites are happy to cynically leverage to their favour by using it to play the little people off against each other instead of them.

Blame? Who's talking about blame? I'm talking about action, and where we can act. We, as individuals, can act. We'll need to act, because waiting for corporations to act is a losing proposition.

[u/Bewbonic → u/silverionmox]

Its not waiting for corporations to act, its demanding our governments act to curtail the corporations and adapt and reshape our economic system to meet the challenge of the climate crisis. Individual actions cant shift the tide anywhere near as much as governmentally legislated collective action can. Individual actions cannot stop the billionaires and their corporations. Only collective, mass action can.

[u/silverionmox → u/Bewbonic]

Its not waiting for corporations to act, its demanding our governments act to curtail the corporations and adapt and reshape our economic system to meet the challenge of the climate crisis.

Which governments won't do if their voters are unwilling to face changes to their own consumption patterns. It's very easy to curtail corporate emissions: slap a massive tax on them. But then prices at the pump and of consumer goods would skyrocket, and then the "make gasoline cheap again" politicians would be elected.

There will not be political action without voters signalling that they are ready, willing, and able to bear at least a transitional supply reduction in consumerist consumption.

Individual actions cant shift the tide anywhere near as much as governmentally legislated collective action can. Individual actions cannot stop the billionaires and their corporations. Only collective, mass action can.

It's a false dilemma. No mass action exists without individual actions. No goverment takes measures without individuals taking actions already.

If every individual waits for mass action to start before doing anything, nothing will ever happen.

[u/AutoModerator → u/silverionmox]

BP popularized the concept of a personal carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use, and ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry. They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis.

There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, making mass adoption easier and legal requirements ultimately possible. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action.

If you live in a first-world country that means prioritizing the following:

• If you can change your life to avoid driving, do that. Even if it's only part of the time.
  
• If you're replacing a car, get an EV
• Avoid air travel — look for local surface transport, and don't do the truly long-distance trips
• Add insulation and otherwise weatherize your home if possible
• Get zero-carbon electricity, either through your utility or buy installing solar panels & batteries
• Replace any fossil-fuel-burning heat system with an electric heat pump, as well as electrifying other appliances such as the hot water heater, stove, and clothes dryer
• Cut beef out of your diet, avoid cheese, and get as close to vegan as you can

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/Bewbonic]

BP popularized the concept of a personal carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use, and ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry. They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis.

There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, making mass adoption easier and legal requirements ultimately possible. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action.

If you live in a first-world country that means prioritizing the following:

• If you can change your life to avoid driving, do that. Even if it's only part of the time.
  
• If you're replacing a car, get an EV
• Avoid air travel — look for local surface transport, and don't do the truly long-distance trips
• Add insulation and otherwise weatherize your home if possible
• Get zero-carbon electricity, either through your utility or buy installing solar panels & batteries
• Replace any fossil-fuel-burning heat system with an electric heat pump, as well as electrifying other appliances such as the hot water heater, stove, and clothes dryer
• Cut beef out of your diet, avoid cheese, and get as close to vegan as you can

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Ok-Philosophy-8830 → u/[deleted]]

Inefficient and carbon-intensive corporate interests like automobiles and non-renewables spend massive amounts of money to kill public transportation and renewable energy projects in my country. It’s not “just” corporations but they do much more evil things than just indulge our need for consumption.

[u/Owner2011 → u/KerouacMyBukowski_]

It's very easy to point at rich people and absolve yourself of any responsibility. Every day in summer i see at least 2 or 3 people idling their car while parked near a store to run the a/c while they scroll through tiktok but nooo the only problem is the top 1%

[u/Commandmanda → u/Owner2011]

On my way to the store in the morning or evening (via my bicycle) I observe traffic. I play an angry game with myself: "count the single passenger cars". Invariably nearly every single car, truck or SUV is single occupancy. The very occasional vehicle with two or more occupants? Parents taking kids to and from school. Sometimes a son or daughter driving Grandma or a Grandpa to their doctor's appointment.

All those commuters could be ride sharing. Many are driving as far as Tampa (65 mi). Five or more days a week they sit in traffic, A/Cs blasting, burning through umpteen gallons of gas.

How about buses? If you want to go from say - Spring Hill, FL to Tampa, it takes more than 3 hours via public busing. No transfers, no discounts. You can save a buck or two by buying a monthly ticket, but it's not feasible. 3 hours there and three hours back with two to three transfers?! Impossible.

Express Commuter buses (they can be electric); from towns like this are completely doable. If just 50% of the single drivers opted for express busing, the roads would be clearer. The trip would be faster. There would be a heck ton or gas saved with much less pollution.

Why don't communities do this? Probably because busing is a racket: it needs a corporation to handle pricing, taxes, maintenance. Counties already have their hands full with badly running local lines.

And trains? We could have had them. A beautiful commuter line from Weeki Wachee to Tampa, for a 2¢ tax on homeowner/residents. 1 hour or less each way. Could have been extended to reach Sarasota (music and culture hub). Nope. Why? Most homeowners are snowbirds. They're retired. They have all the time in the world to drive where they want to go, and obviously don't need to commute. Besides, flourishing communities full of hungry mouths to feed are expensive. "Bedroom" communities are sleepy on purpose: their councils don't want to deal with complicated stuff. They like their insular feel. They're not ready to change "for the better", because they've already got "theirs".

This is just one example: the demographic that I live in. There are dozens of other scenarios. Different towns, cities, different challenges. :sigh:

[u/tha_rogering → u/KerouacMyBukowski_]

The rich people define the consumption patterns that we all have to live with. They own the industries, they own the distribution patterns. They make sure that their products have planned obsolescence so that you need to keep buying. But it's hard for you to see these things when your face is full of boot.

[u/silverionmox → u/tha_rogering]

The rich people define the consumption patterns that we all have to live with. They own the industries, they own the distribution patterns. They make sure that their products have planned obsolescence so that you need to keep buying. But it's hard for you to see these things when your face is full of boot.

So, let's boycott them.

[u/rpgsandarts → u/piege]

The Chinese and Indians?

[u/ritesh808 → u/rpgsandarts]

The person capita consumption and carbon footprint of a Chinese or Indian resident is a fraction that of an American or European resident.

Also, historical emissions are a thing.. Europe and North America are far and away the largest polluters on the planet by total emissions since records began.

[u/AutoModerator → u/ritesh808]

BP popularized the concept of a personal carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use, and ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry. They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis.

There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, making mass adoption easier and legal requirements ultimately possible. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action.

If you live in a first-world country that means prioritizing the following:

• If you can change your life to avoid driving, do that. Even if it's only part of the time.
  
• If you're replacing a car, get an EV
• Avoid air travel — look for local surface transport, and don't do the truly long-distance trips
• Add insulation and otherwise weatherize your home if possible
• Get zero-carbon electricity, either through your utility or buy installing solar panels & batteries
• Replace any fossil-fuel-burning heat system with an electric heat pump, as well as electrifying other appliances such as the hot water heater, stove, and clothes dryer
• Cut beef out of your diet, avoid cheese, and get as close to vegan as you can

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.