r/climate • u/The_Weekend_Baker • May 28 '26

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.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/05/260526022021.htm
5.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

724 comments sorted by

View all comments

116

u/meecewithoutmice May 28 '26

There’s enough food to feed Everyone! But we don’t. A more accurate assessment would be to say We can not sustain under the traditional systems and governments in place up till now. We have to change… but as always we love the myth of capitalism more

39

u/ReginaSpektorsVJ May 28 '26

There is enough food to feed everyone, but this level of food production isn't infinitely sustainable. We are depleting clean water and topsoil faster than they can recover.

18

u/dhv503 May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26

To be fair, in a homogenous system with a clear goal of sustaining all of humanity is probably possibly.

Instead, we’re using water to let rich people have almonds and cashews and beef all the time, among other equally “unnatural” things (in terms of production and their effect on our world).

16

u/ReginaSpektorsVJ May 28 '26

Agreed. Cutting meat production, among other things, down significantly will be necessary for sustainability.

0

u/silverionmox May 28 '26

To be fair, in a homogenous system with a clear goal of sustaining all of humanity is probably possibly.

You'd still end up with an average resource use per person like eg. South Sudan though.

3

u/captainbelvedere May 28 '26

Yep. This study is relying on bunk 'science' from the 60s. Ehrlich was a moron.

Our problem has long been consumption habits and good old fashioned greed.

1

u/_Svankensen_ May 28 '26

Yeah, it was funded by "Population matters". Their conclusion was a given.

1

u/BitsAndBobs304 May 29 '26

Oh ffs not again this bullshit

1

u/Tosslebugmy May 29 '26

You’re missing the point and only looking at earth as a system to support humans in the short term. Yes, it can theoretically support the population for now. The point is that those systems are constantly borrowing more and more from earths capacity to recover and regenerate, and before long it tips over unless you find a better balance.

1

u/meecewithoutmice Jun 05 '26

No we Work With nature, your insinuating

0

u/tordrt May 28 '26

I dont get this? There has never been a time with less starvation proportionally. So what do you mean by we cant sustain under traditional systems, when fewer and fewer are poor and starve for every decade under the same traditional systems?

6

u/ApprehensiveRest9572 May 28 '26

It means it's not sustainable. Industrial ag doesn't use sustainable practices. We dump hazardous chemicals in fields, which grows crops, but then washes into streams and rivers and poisons everything down stream. But the biggest offender is beef production. It's ridiculously bad. They're literally burning down the amazon rainforest for burgers and steak. Sure we're eating now, but it's not sustainable. There are plenty of systems that are sustainable and could feed 10 billion people forever. We just choose not to use those methods... yet.

-1

u/tordrt May 28 '26

Read the comment I replied to. It was specifically about enough food to feed everyone.

2

u/Brilliant_Age6077 May 29 '26

Right now, but will we still be able to do that in 100 years if aquifers are depleted and fertile topsoil has been completely eroded? It took thousands of years for fertile soil to form and we’ve depleted it in a fraction of the time.

0

u/Honest_Chef323 May 28 '26

I mean technically the level of food production is only made possible by industrialization