this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2025
146 points (98.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

35334 readers
1877 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 38 points 3 days ago (2 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)

[–] bluemoon@piefed.social 20 points 3 days ago (1 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.

[–] SGforce@lemmy.ca 19 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Nefara@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days 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.

[–] BlueLineBae@midwest.social 3 points 3 days ago (1 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.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago (1 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.

[–] BlueLineBae@midwest.social 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

As someone who works in healthcare, I couldn't agree more. I'll be very happy to give up my job if it means we can all have healthcare.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

You're the same as literally every other person in the field with whom I've ever talked to about this. And it's been a lot.