• masquenox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What standard of living do you consider “all things being equal”?

    I don’t consider “standards of living” - period.

    I consider this.

    • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s literally an article about how they don’t have enough water. Yes, the rich are using twice as much as the poor and it would go further if it was distributed more evenly but the fact remains that there’s a finite amount that is not sustainable beyond a certain population.

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This…

        All things being equal (and that’s the important factor) there is next-to-no chance of us ever reaching such a bizarre amount of people

        …just went completely over your head, didn’t it?

        • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          No? The article says rich people are using 2x as much water as poor people - 50% vs 23% and they are already having water problems. Assuming the water consumption was evened out this leaves the population room to go up no more than 4x what it is now even with equal consumption. That’s hardly out of the realm of possibility considering the population already has gone up 8x since 1950