False. The fourth dial is efficiency, and there is zero reason to believe we can’t make everything sufficiently efficient to accommodate the number of people of we have, and probably a few billion more.
Nobody is coming at you with ad hominems. You are making eco-fascist arguments, and they are being labelled as such.
And of course none of us called him that… but merely pointed out that it’s a regular feature of fascist talking points. But they’re not the only ones who believe that shit…
And I assume the follow up will be who gets to decide who gets “eliminated” and who?
According to either of these definitions,
I don’t see how people citing vacant housing levels, food production capabilities, or the history of the “solution,” as you offer it can in good faith be described as ad hominem attacks.
Land area yes. Land production, no.
Prior to the Green Revolution, we produced an order of magnitude less food on the same land as we do now. There’s at least another order of magnitude of efficiency left in how we grow food. Eating less meat could be a big part of that, but it may not have to be, either.
Furthermore, we already produce enough food for everyone we have currently. It’s a distribution problem, not a production problem even if population does grow.
You are right, but I was trying to show how it’s also a matter of land use. Efficiency is not always a good result of practices that endanger our ecosystem (poorly maintained logistic supply lines, pesticides and greenhouse gases, and poor choices in agricultural needs – like palm oil production that decimates forests).
I wanted to support @anon61221983 's “capitalism” argument, but maybe I wasn’t clear enough?
It’s clearer now, thanks!
for instance: people don’t hoard food to get rich
that’s the difference between a commodity and an investment
Yes, I’m aware there’s a difference… I’m arguing that property is becoming more like a commodity than an investment…
If you’re wealthy enough or have enough capital, you can easily treat large ticket items like a commodity… We’ve long treated home ownership as an investment and a means of building wealth, which is certainly part of capitalism, but there has been a shift more recently as wealth inequality broadens. What’s different since at least 2008 (if not before) is that buying property has become more like a commodity - buy up lots of houses from a crash (sometimes for pennies on the dollar), fix them up, and either sell it off, or become a landlord… housing and land as a salable commodity. In marxist terms, it’s covering up the true value to people by only defining it by its economic value.
Certainly! To clarify in case it’s necessary, the efficiency I refer to upthread includes sustainability, as modern conversations about land use efficiency necessarily do. I don’t mean “efficiency” in the way that people might have used that term many years ago, which primarily meant capitalist profit-taking efficiency on the land (which was inevitably unsustainable).
Which one of those did “transitioning from a hunter-gatherer society to an agriculture-based one” fall under?
There are no dials. Nobody is cackling while turning dials. That’s not how things work.
Whenever someone claims landlords aren’t bad, I always remember part of recurring rent in mid-range to high range rentals – is about appearances – like crown molding or wainscoting or the like. It’s a one-time installation that they charge for repeatedly, trying to justify hundreds or thousands of dollars each month. 
Fixed that for you.
OTOH, we’ve been trying here in the US, with very limited success, but it’s caught on more in Europe, that when properties go on the market, the listing has to include the operating cost of the house, so takes into account the energy and water efficiency. If we could get people to recognize that as part of the cost of homeownership, I think builders/flippers would be forced to address it in their renovations, but it’s been a really tough nut to crack.
Everyone “knows” they need new windows, but happily leave the attic and walls free of insulation. 
And there is always someone who wants to turn that third dial that is subtitled genocide.
You mention that there are three dials, but seem weirdly obsessed with the absolute worst one to apply.
You could quadruple the population and cut our environmental footprint if you killed capitalism.
Wow…
It’s so weird how the folks claiming that “too many people exist!” never seem to be volunteering up themselves to lessen that “burden.”
Anyone who genuinely thinks that the ‘solution’ to mass disparity and inequality caused by unchecked greed is “less people” is a major part of the problem.
In case you think @chenille is exaggerating, a question about how many golf courses there are in Arizona got the following response:
This after snarkily brushing off my suggestion that the proven way to reduce the birthrate is promoting women’s rights by implying that won’t re-fill Lake Mead. But Thanos is an honourable man…
