means it's easy to cross a threshold where we have more people than we can keep up with and start killing each other off for what is left

All caveats deal with prime growth conditions.

*doubles every minute under optimum conditions* half filled isn't optimum

yea but bacteria wont invent sex robots <:thinking_clown:590855640268668928>

caveats are exceptions and N^2 is pretty concrete

How does that logic flow with the parking garage if i may ask? You could make an argument that rabbit eating a tree's bark causes damage to the planet.

"it does; humans don't reach equillibrum with the planet
they take but dont give back"
Ehh. Depends on what u mean. If you consider "the planet" in astronomical terms, ye we occasionally shoot an insignificantly small piece of it into outer space, but over all nothing that we do actually leaves the planet at all. We put some gas in the atmosphere. Ok... And? The atmosphere is till a part of the planet from that perspective... We don't reach an equilibrium with the biosphere would be more accurate to say I think, but why the hell would we want to reach that?! We've been there once already and have had the entirety of the history of civilization to get as far away from that point as we could. We don;t want to be in equilibrium with the biosphere... We want the biosphere to act the way it happens to suit us. We want hegemony over the biosphere...

Don't Diss bacteria they'll fuck you up

yes you could but its clear that the rabbit is doing less "harm" in this sense.. then the parking garage

but damaging the planet isnt inherently bad

The math is concrete, the reality is flubbed but still pretty solid.

here's the thing

how do humans give back to the biosphere more than they take?

My best friend is barry

i have no reason to care about rabbits

i just care about humanity

I'm not saying that they do

**fuck the planet**

@ManAnimal

I'm saynig that we don;t want to give more then we take

i dont look at damage to the planet as inherently bad

not necessairly

insomuch as the planet helps us

;p;

we don;t WANT this equilibruim

if the planet ceases to help us

we change it

i see it as a natural occurrence really

equilibrium means total stagnation

Mosquitos must die.

i am not saying we want to give more than we take either

We want HEGEMONY and then equilibruim, potentially

We don even have total hegemony

yet

I'd happily say get rid of 90% of the population

i am only saying that there is a finitie amount we can take and as all people require resources, the risk is we bite off more than we can chew