Population[]
Do you really think the world's population *there* would only be a quarter of OTL? --dllu 22:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- The short answer is "yes". The long answer is that humans in some form have been around for a few million years. Civilization has been around for a few thousand years. And yet, after all of that, the population *here* by 1900 was around 1.6 billion people. Just over 100 years later, it's over 6.5 billion. Subtract that very, very recent population boom, and you can easily have a low population. --Riction 23:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how this can be justified given the majority of Earth adhering to vegetarianism. From what I understand, plant-based diets don't yield as much nutritional value of animal-based diets do. It would take much more resources to extract the world's dietary needs from merely a plant-based palette as opposed to mixed palette.
Also, a large reason why the population of humans has been experiencing exponential growth is because of rising living standards which fuels population growth which fuels waste production and resource consumption which in turn fuels environmental degradation.
Jared Diamond's Collapse discusses this all in great deal. From my standpoint, vegetarianism would only be more unsustainable especially coupled with the global rise in living standard post 1900. You may have addressed this already as strict vegetarianism seems to be a significant minority within the lifestyle. It's still something to consider though.
I'm not trying to rain on your parade as they say, I'm trying to work the kinks out. This timeline is so good! Especially since I'm wondering how a more equitable balance of geopolitical power could affect global living standards, population growth, and environmental degradation for Equilibrium.
Canuck2012 (talk) 02:47, April 27, 2017 (UTC)Canuck2012