I mean, we are overpopulated, but the solution is just to have fewer kids. Yeah, us older folks will suffer the consequences of less young people to care for us in our old age, but after that's over, things could be pretty nice for the planet.
No. The problem ISN'T that there's too many people. The problem is that rich people and rich countries are hogging almost all the resources so there's not enough to go around.
You're doing exactly what the meme is warning against.
the solution is just to have fewer kids
While that's probably a good idea for most on the micro (specific family) scale, on a macro (country, continent, planet) scale, it does almost nothing compared to better resource distribution.
us older folks will suffer the consequences of less young people to care for us in our old age
That's ALSO more of a distribution problem: with better compensation and working conditions, more people of all ages who are themselves healthy enough to do the job would care for seniors professionally, and with better social service budgets, more seniors would be able to afford it.
Moreover, people in other professions having fewer working hours and better pay per hour would allow them the time and economic breathing room to better care for their family members in their free time, which would mean fewer offspring per family would be needed for it
but after that's over, things could be pretty nice for the planet.
No. The resource hogging rich people would still be poisoning everything by perpetuating reliance on fossil fuels and other genocidal economic behaviors.
Every single problem attributed to overpopulation can be solved by distributing resources away from corporations and billionaires towards things that actually improve the well-being of humans in general AND the planet.
Pretending otherwise is helping the oppressive elite whether you intend to or not.
I mean, you could probably fit four families in my apartment, but does anyone want to live that way? It's not a question of how many people the planet can hold, it's a question of how many people would be comfortable for it to hold. And that's not even getting into the fact that other creatures have a right to be here also.
No, I live in a pretty small place. My point is that we could probably find all kinds of ways to cram way more people on the planet. But would we want to? Is that really the world anyone wants to live in?
The fact that I don't speak any other languages doesn't imply that I'm only referring to English speakers. That's a ridiculous argument.
And I don't advocate that people stop procreating. I don't actually advocate anything, but I don't personally think it would be a net harm if the entire population of the world chose to have less children for a generation or two.
imagine you do speak many languages, but you chose to advocate for lower population (even passively as you are now doing) but exclusive choose to use only, say, swedish to voice this idea.
how can that be anything but eugenics against swedish people?
The only way I can see that making any sense is if it's immigration into a very resource-poor area. Maybe a desert or tundra? I guess Las Vegas comes to mind, it's overpopulated for what is naturally found there. Areas like the Sahara desert especially.
Other than that kind of very specific circumstance, definitely racist.
The ecology has value insofar it provides humanity with resources to live. When you fall for ecofascism you necessarily exclude someone from humanity. Please don't do it.
I like the fire but I don't think it's a good precedent to exclude bad people from humanity, more accurately from basic human decency. IMO that does NOT mean that the billionaires don't get the wall, they ought to get the wall at a bare minimum as self-defense against their ongoing violence against the working class, but they should only get the wall and nothing worse than what is needed (e.g. torture).
19 Comments
MagnificentSteiner@lemmy.zip · 23 pts · 187d
demlet@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 187d
I mean, we are overpopulated, but the solution is just to have fewer kids. Yeah, us older folks will suffer the consequences of less young people to care for us in our old age, but after that's over, things could be pretty nice for the planet.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 187d
No. The problem ISN'T that there's too many people. The problem is that rich people and rich countries are hogging almost all the resources so there's not enough to go around.
You're doing exactly what the meme is warning against.
While that's probably a good idea for most on the micro (specific family) scale, on a macro (country, continent, planet) scale, it does almost nothing compared to better resource distribution.
That's ALSO more of a distribution problem: with better compensation and working conditions, more people of all ages who are themselves healthy enough to do the job would care for seniors professionally, and with better social service budgets, more seniors would be able to afford it.
Moreover, people in other professions having fewer working hours and better pay per hour would allow them the time and economic breathing room to better care for their family members in their free time, which would mean fewer offspring per family would be needed for it
No. The resource hogging rich people would still be poisoning everything by perpetuating reliance on fossil fuels and other genocidal economic behaviors.
Every single problem attributed to overpopulation can be solved by distributing resources away from corporations and billionaires towards things that actually improve the well-being of humans in general AND the planet.
Pretending otherwise is helping the oppressive elite whether you intend to or not.
demlet@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 187d
I mean, you could probably fit four families in my apartment, but does anyone want to live that way? It's not a question of how many people the planet can hold, it's a question of how many people would be comfortable for it to hold. And that's not even getting into the fact that other creatures have a right to be here also.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -1 pts · 187d
So you're quite comfortable, right? Just saying how you feel about the poors? jfc.
Yes, veganism makes the planet vastly more sustainable. We're nowhere near the limits...
Unless you need hamburgers to be comfortable? In that case we should castrate the poor. \s
demlet@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 186d
No, I live in a pretty small place. My point is that we could probably find all kinds of ways to cram way more people on the planet. But would we want to? Is that really the world anyone wants to live in?
nsrxn@mstdn.social · 3 pts · 187d
actual eugenics propaganda
demlet@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 187d
Nope, I think the world would be better with less of everyone.
nsrxn@mstdn.social · 0 pts · 187d
and yet you are only advocating that English speaking lemmy users stop procreating.
demlet@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 186d
The fact that I don't speak any other languages doesn't imply that I'm only referring to English speakers. That's a ridiculous argument.
And I don't advocate that people stop procreating. I don't actually advocate anything, but I don't personally think it would be a net harm if the entire population of the world chose to have less children for a generation or two.
nsrxn@mstdn.social · 1 pts · 186d
imagine you do speak many languages, but you chose to advocate for lower population (even passively as you are now doing) but exclusive choose to use only, say, swedish to voice this idea.
how can that be anything but eugenics against swedish people?
malthusianism is eugenics.
magnetosphere@fedia.io · 12 pts · 187d
I don’t understand how, logically, overpopulation is related to immigration. It’s the same number of people, just in different places.
SlurpingPus@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 187d
The tiger would prefer if the immigrants were overpopulated someplace far away from the tiger.
magnetosphere@fedia.io · 4 pts · 187d
NIMBY bullshit. Of course. Thanks!
HostilePasta@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 187d
The only way I can see that making any sense is if it's immigration into a very resource-poor area. Maybe a desert or tundra? I guess Las Vegas comes to mind, it's overpopulated for what is naturally found there. Areas like the Sahara desert especially.
Other than that kind of very specific circumstance, definitely racist.
Ilixtze@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 187d
Gunther put that down!
NostraDavid@programming.dev · 4 pts · 186d
vivalapivo@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 187d
The ecology has value insofar it provides humanity with resources to live. When you fall for ecofascism you necessarily exclude someone from humanity. Please don't do it.
seathru@quokk.au · 8 pts · 187d
I'm OK with excluding billionaires from humanity. I am not a perfect person.
PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@anarchist.nexus · 2 pts · 187d
I like the fire but I don't think it's a good precedent to exclude bad people from humanity, more accurately from basic human decency. IMO that does NOT mean that the billionaires don't get the wall, they ought to get the wall at a bare minimum as self-defense against their ongoing violence against the working class, but they should only get the wall and nothing worse than what is needed (e.g. torture).
alexquiniou@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 187d
Watch kingsman (first movie) It's brilliant !