rationalskepticism.org

juju7 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Personally, I opt for the simplest argument here: the problem is 7 billion people. If there were 2 billion of us, current levels of profligacy would not have an unsustainable effect on the environment.

That is nonsense. Not everybody contributes equally.

By the same token, if (or when) the population reduces from 7 billion to 2 billion, not everybody is going to sacrifice equally. So, what else is new? I mean, it might only reduce to 6 billion, or to 4 billion, but the principle holds.