How can a country with so little people be so dam great?

How can a country with so little people be so dam great?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
ogj.com/articles/print/volume-111/issue-12/special-report-worldwide-report/worldwide-reserves-oil-production-post-modest-rise.html
whyfiles.org/100oil/2a.html
iea.org/aboutus/faqs/oil/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>3.0

GIT GUD BRITEN

>world 1.6
How does this work?

this is so dumb

1.6 earths XD

Call me idiot but I don't get it.

AUSTRALIA
>AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIA
>AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIA
>AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIA
>AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIA
>AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIA
>AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIA
>AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIA
>AUSTRALIA

Of course you don't 2.1

>GET GOOD SPAIN

You'll find out soon ;)

helo how can by earth?

thansk

>3
Alri lads the two next earths we'll found are for us OK ?

Imagine how shit covered that 0.7 of an Indian earth would be

>india
>.7

toilets must use up a lot of energy haha

We are living past the Earth's regenerative capability.

>tfw funland not mentioned

the lack of mentionings is reaching crisis levels lads

By any chance are they counting the amount of land per person per country? And including all of the uninhabitable desert as "living like australia"?

it's usage of all resources not just land

But if it's counting land and not just hospitable land, the calculations are inherently flawed

it is counting coal and other non-renewables

>china only 2 earth
>

I guess that explains why every living thing is out to kill you in australia.
Salvation when?

DELETE THIS

It means that in 1 year we spoil more ressources than the Earth creates it.

I thought France would be lower because of our clean nuclear energy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

>these idiotic replies
How dense are you people?

> India is almost as big as China in terms of population
> 0.7 Earths.
RMYT

This is the amount of land required to sustain for an indefinite time the Earth population assuming everyone lived as the average Australian/American/Swiss/etc.

The lower number says 1.6 because we already do not live in a sustainable way.

This bothers me. The indian way of life consists in absolutely shitting up everything. Living like thwm would leave the whole world without clean water in less than a decade. Just look at the ganges.

That's not the concern but the amount of land resources required to live by their standards.

And IMHO it would be far, far saner just to reduce the world population to, say, 1b people than reduce the life standards.

That's not even sane at all.

>Canada not in the list
What the fug

Finlan more like BINlan haha

>the earth's 'regenerative capability'
>earth 'creating resources'
This is bullshit. There is no way to measure any of this well, we only know how much stuff is produced, how much we use in ways of varying meaningfulness, and that there will always be a certain scarcity of resources.

The figure is also completely unclear on what it is displaying exactly.

Well, here are our alternatives:
a) More efficient usage of resources - we've been doing this in a way, but we need to do it more systematically.
b) More resources - like exploring other planets. Does not solve stuff as agrarian land.
c) Lower life quality - but let's face it, nobody wants this, not even the hippies.
d) Reduce our population - either by putting less kids on the world or by outright killing people. Main concern in this regard is SS Africa, they pump children like there's no tomorrow.
e) A Malthusian tragedy with a twist: it isn't caused just by the number of heads, but also by the amount of resources used by each head.

Note those aren't exclusive.

It can be measured.
* How much time does it take for oil to be produced from organic matter?
* How much time does it take for minerals on the sea to be fixed into useful ores?
* How much carbon dioxide are we pouring in the atmosphere, and how much can be naturally sequestered?

Et cetera.

Maybe it's because they don't use as much land for livestock, with that whole "cows are sacred so we drink their piss" schtick.

no it means they don't use much electricity per person, life stock eat pretty much the same amount of energy to grow the same amount of meat, they are a non-issue

>be Indian
>give back to the earth by defecating externally, ensuring the crops are well nourished

Actually they do it less efficiently, there it just runs off into the rivers then the sea, while here it's collected in wastewater plants, dried/fermented, then put on the fields again

>* How much time does it take for oil to be produced from organic matter?
>* How much time does it take for minerals on the sea to be fixed into useful ores?
>* How much carbon dioxide are we pouring in the atmosphere, and how much can be naturally sequestered?
It's not like oil continuously gets created by mother earth, and it would be very hard to measure exactly at what rate it is produced.
There are still loads of oil in the ground. The problem is just that most of it cannot be extracted in a profitable way, but that would change with rising oil prices.

But let's say the figure does display that. They somehow measured the rate at which oil is produced. We definitely know that this is an extremely slow process, it's generally thought to take hundreds of thousands of years. If we actually use only 1.6 times the amount of oil produced naturally by the earth, that would mean we don't use much at all.
It would definitely be nothing compared to the oil reserves our earth still has.

The whole "declining birthrates are bad goys! Think of the pensions!" meme must die. We should let the population balance itself naturally.
And as for Africa we should just cut all that aid and gibsmedats, it doesn't matter if a niggress pumps out 10 kids if 80% die before reaching adulthood.

>It's not like oil continuously gets created [...]
The Earth still produces oil, at a very slow rate - from organic matter buried without access to oxygen through some million of years. A rough estimate can be made by the amount of known oil divided by its average age.

>There are still loads of oil in the ground [...]
Sure, I agree. However, rising prices means overall less life quality. Also, if we continue using more and more oil, eventually this one will be dry too.

>But let's say [...]
I think the figures above are for resources in general, not just oil. I assume the oil consumption is far, far higher than the rate of natural generation, since it's freaking slow.

Complains about the decreasing birth rates can be divided into two groups: competition ("someone else is having more kids than me!") and economy ("the economy will collapse, we don't have enough manpower").

The first is, really, Tragedy of the Commons in a nutshell; the later would require some changes on how our economy works people aren't too eager to do...

Also, about Africa: ironically, cutting off aid means more kids being produced. There's an inverse correlation between the amount of kids reaching adulthood and prosperity.

Total oil reserves are estimated at 1.64 trillion bbls*1.

12.5% of our oil is from the Miocene and Oligocene*2. This averages on ~15 million years for 0.2 trillion bbls, or ~14000 bbls each year.

We're using 35 billion bbls a year*3.

So yeah, we're using far, far more oil than Earth's regenerative capacity for that.

1 - ogj.com/articles/print/volume-111/issue-12/special-report-worldwide-report/worldwide-reserves-oil-production-post-modest-rise.html
2 - whyfiles.org/100oil/2a.html
3 - iea.org/aboutus/faqs/oil/

>I assume the oil consumption is far, far higher than the rate of natural generation, since it's freaking slow.
Yeah, that's what I was saying.
I am also saying that this is likely to be true for many resources, but my guess is that we'll be able to at least reduce our use of oil and gas by using more nuclear energy. Developing nuclear fusion would even potentially create such a strong source of energy that most other ways of generating energy would be irrelevant.

As for minerals used in phones and such, most of them can be recycled. Again though, it is often more profitable for companies to mine them than to recycle them from old electronics, so recycling will increase with scarcity.

I'm not saying we can completely ignore the natural reserves we have left, but I'm illustrating that the amount of resources we use compared to those still available should be considered in a broader way than we are doing.
The nature of the resources we are using changes constantly, and the figure is completely unable to take into account any resources that we are not using yet, but will later take over the function of resources we are currently using. I also still believe there is no way that they have accurately measured the rate of natural regeneration for resources.

I wish people would see that Japan is doing fine with poor birthrates because they have embraced automation. Everyone in the West is horrified by it, but we don't realize that it's the only thing that will save stuff like pensions.

We must become the poo and learn from them

My main concern regarding oil isn't even energy production... there are already alternatives. Main problem is the industrial usage, we're burning stuff we could use for plastics and solvents instead.

Minerals are theoretically recyclable, but plenty end in the seas due to entropy. For example, best scenario for gold assumes 2Mt as obtainable gold, while there are 20Mt literally diluted in the oceans.

About the last two paragraphs: I agree those numbers are flawed and should be taken with a huge grain of salt. And sometimes they're presented in alarmist ways. And I agree too the nature of the resources we use change a lot depending on the availability. But they still show we're using too many resources, and when those changes are scarcity-driven, the lowering of life standards is inevitable.

And there's one resource we aren't even talking about that is essential - land for crops, the reason I said we should be 1b people instead of, like, seven?

Accept the poo. Become one in the loo. Designate yourself as your own shitting street.

Stupid jokes apart, we might check the main reasons they use so few resources, as well why Aussies and Americans use so much. Try to cut off the culture-based "dead weights" regarding resource consumption in a way that doesn't impact much our lives.

If we take the numbers as true: Switzerland has a nice life quality, why on Earth does Australia need so many resources compared with them?

>Russia that high
This sorta makes sense, they might use a shitton of energy on heating, acceptable considering their climate
>Australia
Probably inexcusable, you can tell its energy due to the big fucking ozone holes they have there and everybody getting cancer. My cousin from there says the sun is deadly and you need to wear sunscreen all the time.

Well blame the UN it's them who is support poor countries so their population grown too much. United Nations is an evil corporation what wants to destroy Earth!

Simple solution. More war.

>Ukraine
>0.000000000000000000000000000000000001FU

>I wish people would see that Japan is doing fine with poor birthrates because they have embraced automation
>economic stagnation and their entire policy being "we need the population to fall faster than the economy so our per capita income doesn't flatline"
>fine
Please go away

>The whole "declining birthrates are bad goys! Think of the pensions!" meme must die
>the most productive regions has fewer workers, the immigrants from other regions don't work as much
>the shithole regions have much more people, relying on the productive regions to invest and subsidise them
Geez, why would people from the first world possibly be pre-occupied with falling birth rates and social instability coupled with massive immigration?