|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 28 2019 18:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2019 18:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 28 2019 18:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
The "overpopulation" argument kinda grosses me out. It takes an issue of a handful of people producing the vast majority of pollution (for their own personal benefit) and puts the blame on the masses they exploit to get it. Yes I can see why that is. It grosses most people out. Unfortunately if you're first instinct in a worldwide climate emergency is to worry about who is getting blamed I find that kinda sad, and indicative of a political worldview that puts blame ahead of solutions. I agree that there is a handful of people creating the vast majority of the problems, but a much larger proportion of the population is complicit in that. Simply blaming the rich powerful people is great for achieving political change, but not solving the actual emergency. The fact is that the world is already overpopulated. Feeding the 7-8 billion humans takes alot of dirty, polluting work, regardless of profit. Your revolution won't fix that. It'll just make people feel better about wrecking up the place. It's not about "blame" in the esoteric sense it's about responsibility/impact (which should be prioritized imo if one seeks to fix the problem). You're argument is squeezing it's solution from the people most exploited by the problem to the benefit of the exploiters without a tethering to actually resolving the problem. Less people just means wealthy people can pollute more while exploiting those suffering the consequences of their pollution, it doesn't address the problem at all from my perspective.
I think you can address both problems simultaneously.
We're both coming at this from exactly the same point of view in a way.
I'm saying overpopulation is necessarily going to cause the continuation of environmental problems.
You are saying failing to remove the powerful who are responsible for the direction our society has gone in will necessarily cause the continuation of our environmental problems, with the added effect that exploited populations will continue to be exploited.
Its very likely in my eyes that both of these things are true.
|
On May 28 2019 19:01 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2019 18:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2019 18:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 28 2019 18:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
The "overpopulation" argument kinda grosses me out. It takes an issue of a handful of people producing the vast majority of pollution (for their own personal benefit) and puts the blame on the masses they exploit to get it. Yes I can see why that is. It grosses most people out. Unfortunately if you're first instinct in a worldwide climate emergency is to worry about who is getting blamed I find that kinda sad, and indicative of a political worldview that puts blame ahead of solutions. I agree that there is a handful of people creating the vast majority of the problems, but a much larger proportion of the population is complicit in that. Simply blaming the rich powerful people is great for achieving political change, but not solving the actual emergency. The fact is that the world is already overpopulated. Feeding the 7-8 billion humans takes alot of dirty, polluting work, regardless of profit. Your revolution won't fix that. It'll just make people feel better about wrecking up the place. It's not about "blame" in the esoteric sense it's about responsibility/impact (which should be prioritized imo if one seeks to fix the problem). You're argument is squeezing it's solution from the people most exploited by the problem to the benefit of the exploiters without a tethering to actually resolving the problem. Less people just means wealthy people can pollute more while exploiting those suffering the consequences of their pollution, it doesn't address the problem at all from my perspective. I think you can address both problems simultaneously. We're both coming at this from exactly the same point of view in a way. I'm saying overpopulation is necessarily going to cause the continuation of environmental problems. You are saying failing to remove the powerful who are responsible for the direction our society has gone in will necessarily cause the continuation of our environmental problems. Its very likely in my eyes that both of these things are true.
I think "overpopulation" is a misnomer. It's just "the population" from my perspective. "Overpopulation" is a euphemism for "too many poor, stupid, (often) not-white people I don't empathize with" imo.
It's not too many people that's the problem, it's a society that exults the wrong people for the wrong reasons and that's rooted in capitalism today. Supporting the population (even a larger one) isn't the problem, it's supporting the kind of population some people are defending imo.
The issue I have with the framing of your argument is that it places the culpability on the exploited and the solution it offers preserves that exploitation (perhaps inadvertently) for yourself and others advantage.
EDIT: I should add that "overpopulation" is a thing, but the issue we face isn't too many deer, it's that some deer are eating 1000's of times their share of resources.
|
Just blaming "the powerfull" seems very, very easy way out so we weak individuals don't have to rethink our own way of life and i still don't see how a revolution will do anything to solve this problem, aside from killing people.
People want stuff. They get more stuff than they ever need or would know they want if not for advertising but just blaming "the powerfull" for this is a very easy way out of your personal responsibility.
Meanwhile there are people "rolling coal" in the US, what do you think will they do if you do your climate revolution?
|
On May 28 2019 19:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2019 19:01 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 28 2019 18:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2019 18:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 28 2019 18:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
The "overpopulation" argument kinda grosses me out. It takes an issue of a handful of people producing the vast majority of pollution (for their own personal benefit) and puts the blame on the masses they exploit to get it. Yes I can see why that is. It grosses most people out. Unfortunately if you're first instinct in a worldwide climate emergency is to worry about who is getting blamed I find that kinda sad, and indicative of a political worldview that puts blame ahead of solutions. I agree that there is a handful of people creating the vast majority of the problems, but a much larger proportion of the population is complicit in that. Simply blaming the rich powerful people is great for achieving political change, but not solving the actual emergency. The fact is that the world is already overpopulated. Feeding the 7-8 billion humans takes alot of dirty, polluting work, regardless of profit. Your revolution won't fix that. It'll just make people feel better about wrecking up the place. It's not about "blame" in the esoteric sense it's about responsibility/impact (which should be prioritized imo if one seeks to fix the problem). You're argument is squeezing it's solution from the people most exploited by the problem to the benefit of the exploiters without a tethering to actually resolving the problem. Less people just means wealthy people can pollute more while exploiting those suffering the consequences of their pollution, it doesn't address the problem at all from my perspective. I think you can address both problems simultaneously. We're both coming at this from exactly the same point of view in a way. I'm saying overpopulation is necessarily going to cause the continuation of environmental problems. You are saying failing to remove the powerful who are responsible for the direction our society has gone in will necessarily cause the continuation of our environmental problems. Its very likely in my eyes that both of these things are true. I think "overpopulation" is a misnomer. It's just "the population" from my perspective. "Overpopulation" is a euphemism for "too many poor, stupid, (often) not-white people I don't empathize with" imo. It's not too many people that's the problem, it's a society that exults the wrong people for the wrong reasons and that's rooted in capitalism today. Supporting the population (even a larger one) isn't the problem, it's supporting the kind of population some people are defending.
Try and keep 200 rats in a small metal box and then come back to me with 'overpopulation is a misnomer'.
Of course it isn't.
On May 28 2019 19:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
The issue I have with the framing of your argument is that it places the culpability on the exploited and the solution it offers preserves that exploitation (perhaps inadvertently) for yourself and others advantage.
Not at all. Sure, you can twist it that way. Go back and read my previous post again. When I say that both our arguments are true, I mean it, its not just a platitude.
There probably should be a revolution. I just don't think that's going to solve the environmental problem on its own. You can be as offended as you want on behalf of the world's exploited people at your perception that I am blaming them, but the offense you take it is no more likely to solve the world's environmental crisis than overthrowing the rich.
The sheer number of levels of denial at play here are staggering, and that's from someone who is aware of the dangers of denial when it comes to this issue.
Also, turning this into a "You're just blaming poor people in third world countries" thing is a horrible misrepresentation of what I am actually saying. My first post was about my choices, choices that some of my friends make in the UK. A UK child is probably (I don't know the stats) much more of a problem than a poor child when it comes to the environment, because of the amount of trash and stuff they generate.
I know some people will frame the argument that way (poor African people having loads of kids are to blame or whatever) but that is categorically not what I'm saying.
|
On May 28 2019 19:12 Velr wrote:
Just blaming "the powerfull" seems very, very easy way out so we weak individuals don't have to rethink our own way of life and i still don't see how a revolution will do anything to solve this problem, aside from killing people.
People want stuff. They get more stuff than they ever need or would know they want if not for advertising but just blaming "the powerfull" for this is a very easy way out of your personal responsibility.
Meanwhile there are people "rolling coal" in the US, what do you think will they do if you do your climate revolution?
Believe me, we all share responsibility for where we are today and where we'll be in 30 years so I don't just blame "the powerful". I also recognize everyone from the bottom to the top is part of a system that applies pressures that encourage their worst behaviors so that no individual is entirely responsible for the situation at large or even their own (including the most wealthy and powerful).
I understand that you don't see how revolution addresses it, but you're going to have to look harder than 1 other guy on a gaming forum to find it and not be upset at that (I'm more than happy to do my part though).
So I'll reiterate that the interpretation I'm "just blaming the powerful", is a misreading of my argument I'm trying to rectify.
|
GH If you don't believe overpopulation is worth addressing, can I ask whether you think the question "How many humans can the Earth sustainably support?" is not something we should ever ask?
|
On May 28 2019 19:25 Jockmcplop wrote:
GH If you don't believe overpopulation is worth addressing, can I ask whether you think the question "How many humans can the Earth sustainably support?" is not something we should ever ask?
This is a question that distorts my argument beyond recognition in order to frame it as something reasonable to ask. Rather than dismiss it altogether, I'll try to bring us back to some common understanding of what it is I'm arguing (and interpreting from your argument).
I do think population is something to consider both locally and globally so the premise is faulty already. "Overpopulation" is a framing that places the culpability for climate collapse not on the actors responsible for it's majority, but on the masses they exploit.
Ecologically speaking the planet could easily sustain billions of people without risking climate collapse. What it can't do is sustain billions while a handful of them exploit those billions to wreak vastly disproportionate havoc on the environment for their own personal benefit and some larger populations are willing to accept it so long as their life stays comfortable enough.
|
On May 28 2019 19:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2019 19:25 Jockmcplop wrote:
GH If you don't believe overpopulation is worth addressing, can I ask whether you think the question "How many humans can the Earth sustainably support?" is not something we should ever ask? This is a question that distorts my argument beyond recognition in order to frame it as something reasonable to ask. Rather than dismiss it altogether, I'll try to bring us back to some common understanding of what it is I'm arguing (and interpreting from your argument). I do think population is something to consider both locally and globally so the premise is faulty already. "Overpopulation" is a framing that places the culpability for climate collapse not on the actors responsible for it's majority, but on the masses they exploit. Ecologically speaking the planet could easily sustain billions of people without risking climate collapse. What it can't do is sustain billions while a handful of them exploit those billions to wreak vastly disproportionate havoc on the environment for their own personal benefit and some larger populations are willing to accept it so long as their life stays comfortable enough.
This is what I'm getting at. Go to my post at the top of the page and you'll see that we're in near 100% agreement.
The Earth can sustain some maximum population of humans. That maximum depends heavily on what those humans are doing.
I would suggest that with the state of things as they are right now, that maximum is probably something like 5-6 billion.
I think if we really went for full on revolution in the way society is organized and our resources are used, we could increase that to something like 15 billion maybe.
These are guesses, slightly educated guesses.
That doesn't solve the fact that eventually, if population keeps increasing exponentially, we will end up with all the same environmental problems.
This isn't something that we should wait until it happens to solve, because at that point no second revolution could even help. If we allocate our resources perfectly and still end up nearing the limits of sustainable population, what do we do then?
IMO its better to address this sooner rather than waiting until its too late.
|
On May 28 2019 19:40 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2019 19:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2019 19:25 Jockmcplop wrote:
GH If you don't believe overpopulation is worth addressing, can I ask whether you think the question "How many humans can the Earth sustainably support?" is not something we should ever ask? This is a question that distorts my argument beyond recognition in order to frame it as something reasonable to ask. Rather than dismiss it altogether, I'll try to bring us back to some common understanding of what it is I'm arguing (and interpreting from your argument). I do think population is something to consider both locally and globally so the premise is faulty already. "Overpopulation" is a framing that places the culpability for climate collapse not on the actors responsible for it's majority, but on the masses they exploit. Ecologically speaking the planet could easily sustain billions of people without risking climate collapse. What it can't do is sustain billions while a handful of them exploit those billions to wreak vastly disproportionate havoc on the environment for their own personal benefit and some larger populations are willing to accept it so long as their life stays comfortable enough. This is what I'm getting at. Go to my post at the top of the page and you'll see that we're in near 100% agreement. The Earth can sustain some maximum population of humans. That maximum depends heavily on what those humans are doing. I would suggest that with the state of things as they are right now, that maximum is probably something 5-6 billion. I think if we really went for full on revolution in the way society is organized and our resources are used, we could increase to something 15 billion maybe. These are guesses, slightly educated guesses. That doesn't solve the fact that eventually, if population keeps increasing exponentially, we will end up with all the same environmental problems.
I'm aware of the similarities and differences in our arguments.
My point is that framing the argument as one of overpopulation puts the cart before the horse. It looks at the 15 billion we could support (just using your number) as expendable to preserve the way of life of the 5-6 billion.
The framing that does what I think you're after while also not putting the onus on the exploited is "sustainability".
Billionaires and the system that produces them isn't sustainable and I'd argue a lot of the resistance to this position comes from people relatively comfortable with their place in that system and see attacks on it's sustainability as attacks on them personally.
|
Can you please explain, what would happen after a "succesfull" Revolution and how you would assure that we don't end up at step one again? Just having "nice people" in charge, doesn't change a thing by itself.
I pretend to not care who, how and against what exactly this revolution is and just accept that it will be a 100% success.
|
On May 28 2019 19:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2019 19:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 28 2019 19:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2019 19:25 Jockmcplop wrote:
GH If you don't believe overpopulation is worth addressing, can I ask whether you think the question "How many humans can the Earth sustainably support?" is not something we should ever ask? This is a question that distorts my argument beyond recognition in order to frame it as something reasonable to ask. Rather than dismiss it altogether, I'll try to bring us back to some common understanding of what it is I'm arguing (and interpreting from your argument). I do think population is something to consider both locally and globally so the premise is faulty already. "Overpopulation" is a framing that places the culpability for climate collapse not on the actors responsible for it's majority, but on the masses they exploit. Ecologically speaking the planet could easily sustain billions of people without risking climate collapse. What it can't do is sustain billions while a handful of them exploit those billions to wreak vastly disproportionate havoc on the environment for their own personal benefit and some larger populations are willing to accept it so long as their life stays comfortable enough. This is what I'm getting at. Go to my post at the top of the page and you'll see that we're in near 100% agreement. The Earth can sustain some maximum population of humans. That maximum depends heavily on what those humans are doing. I would suggest that with the state of things as they are right now, that maximum is probably something 5-6 billion. I think if we really went for full on revolution in the way society is organized and our resources are used, we could increase to something 15 billion maybe. These are guesses, slightly educated guesses. That doesn't solve the fact that eventually, if population keeps increasing exponentially, we will end up with all the same environmental problems. I'm aware of the similarities and differences in our arguments. My point is that framing the argument as one of overpopulation puts the cart before the horse. It looks at the 15 million we could support (just using your number) as expendable to preserve the way of life of the 5-6 billion.
It doesn't at all.
This is getting to the point where I'm starting to think you just want to argue for no reason :D
I'm saying let's have our revolution. Let's allocate resources properly. But let's not think that that's all we have to do and some happy everlasting utopia will occur. Environmental problems are upon us right now and whatever we do, they aren't going away, and the huge recent increase in population is a part of that and even with revolution will continue to be a part of that.
I'm not trying to put any cart before any horse.
I'm trying to say that holistic solutions are required. Revolution is not enough.
|
On May 28 2019 19:45 Velr wrote:
Can you please explain, what would happen after a "succesfull" Revolution and how you would assure that we don't end up at step one again? Just having "nice people" in charge, doesn't change a thing by itself.
I pretend to not care who, how and against what exactly this revolution is and just accept that it will be a 100% success.
I'm not in charge of assuring we don't end up at step one again, you and Jock are (at least as much as myself). So I'd ask you, as we stare into the abyss of potential extinction, how will your revolution (or reform if you prefer) save us?
BTW in the US politics thread you can find posts and resources that assist anyone looking to understand my position on how revolution addresses these concerns and will be happy to pick further inquiries to that effect up there.
On May 28 2019 19:47 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2019 19:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2019 19:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 28 2019 19:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2019 19:25 Jockmcplop wrote:
GH If you don't believe overpopulation is worth addressing, can I ask whether you think the question "How many humans can the Earth sustainably support?" is not something we should ever ask? This is a question that distorts my argument beyond recognition in order to frame it as something reasonable to ask. Rather than dismiss it altogether, I'll try to bring us back to some common understanding of what it is I'm arguing (and interpreting from your argument). I do think population is something to consider both locally and globally so the premise is faulty already. "Overpopulation" is a framing that places the culpability for climate collapse not on the actors responsible for it's majority, but on the masses they exploit. Ecologically speaking the planet could easily sustain billions of people without risking climate collapse. What it can't do is sustain billions while a handful of them exploit those billions to wreak vastly disproportionate havoc on the environment for their own personal benefit and some larger populations are willing to accept it so long as their life stays comfortable enough. This is what I'm getting at. Go to my post at the top of the page and you'll see that we're in near 100% agreement. The Earth can sustain some maximum population of humans. That maximum depends heavily on what those humans are doing. I would suggest that with the state of things as they are right now, that maximum is probably something 5-6 billion. I think if we really went for full on revolution in the way society is organized and our resources are used, we could increase to something 15 billion maybe. These are guesses, slightly educated guesses. That doesn't solve the fact that eventually, if population keeps increasing exponentially, we will end up with all the same environmental problems. I'm aware of the similarities and differences in our arguments. My point is that framing the argument as one of overpopulation puts the cart before the horse. It looks at the 15 million we could support (just using your number) as expendable to preserve the way of life of the 5-6 billion. It doesn't at all. This is getting to the point where I'm starting to think you just want to argue for no reason :D I'm saying let's have our revolution. Let's allocate resources properly. But let's not think that that's all we have to do and some happy everlasting utopia will occur. Environmental problems are upon us right now and whatever we do, they aren't going away, and the huge recent increase in population is a part of that and even with revolution will continue to be a part of that. I'm not trying to put any cart before any horse. I'm trying to say that holistic solutions are required. Revolution is not enough.
No, I'm arguing because I disagreed with your argument as presented.
You said:
On May 28 2019 18:33 Jockmcplop wrote:
I wish it was socially acceptable to talk about not having children as a genuine meaningful political movement for change. Its one of the few things that is still truly taboo imo.
Most of my friends don't/won't have kids, some for personal reasons but some genuinely understand the harm that overpopulation is going to do to the world. Its a choice that has to be made individually, but its also something we should be increasingly speaking openly about.
How many generations are we going to have until overpopulation creates a series of horrifying disasters?
You can't even post this kind of content on Facebook, for example, because most people just don't think like this and don't want to feel bad about having kids.
That's fair in a way but we're getting to the point as a species where offending parents is going to be the least of our worries.
which says nothing about the necessity of revolution or your support of it (unless you count telling people not to have kids a revolutionary strategy), it instead laments the social pressure against you suggesting not having families isn't a ridiculous foray into a discussion on climate change.
Then you said:
On May 28 2019 18:54 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2019 18:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
The "overpopulation" argument kinda grosses me out. It takes an issue of a handful of people producing the vast majority of pollution (for their own personal benefit) and puts the blame on the masses they exploit to get it. Yes I can see why that is. It grosses most people out. Unfortunately if you're first instinct in a worldwide climate emergency is to worry about who is getting blamed I find that kinda sad, and indicative of a political worldview that puts blame ahead of solutions.I agree that there is a handful of people creating the vast majority of the problems, but a much larger proportion of the population is complicit in that. Simply blaming the rich powerful people is great for achieving political change, but not solving the actual emergency.
The fact is that the world is already overpopulated. Feeding the 7-8 billion humans takes alot of dirty, polluting work, regardless of profit. Your revolution won't fix that. It'll just make people feel better about wrecking up the place.
And so on.
You weren't saying "lets have a revolution" at first, you were saying "there are already too many people, I wish suggesting not having families is a viable solution didn't get me such social backlash :sad emoji:".
|
|
|
Or yknow, have fewer kids to compensate.
Somehow your forgot that lowering birth rates is an option.
Oh well birth rates are stable so I guess there's nothing we can do, right?
Unfortunately increase in life expectancy is present no matter how inconvenient that is for your argument
|
On May 28 2019 20:25 Jockmcplop wrote:
Or yknow, have fewer kids to compensate.
Somehow your forgot that lowering birth rates is an option.
Oh well birth rates are stable so I guess there's nothing we can do, right?
Unfortunately increase in life expectancy is present no matter how inconvenient that is for your argument
Besides being practically useless in the time frame we have, this is what I'm talking about when I say you're framing the discussion in a problematic way from my perspective.
People reject the "lowering birthrates is an option" argument for a variety of reasons, but rejecting it (as presented) is the right choice as far as I'm concerned.
|
On May 28 2019 20:25 Jockmcplop wrote:
Or yknow, have fewer kids to compensate.
Somehow your forgot that lowering birth rates is an option.
Oh well birth rates are stable so I guess there's nothing we can do, right?
Unfortunately increase in life expectancy is present no matter how inconvenient that is for your argument
The birth rates in the world are already so low that they will cause a decline. Read the links. How hard is it to understand? The birth rate is not the population driver. If you want to fix the population growth, you have to fix what drives the population growth.
Never mind that the ratio between elders and young people is already a problem (if you like things like pensions, care, etc.) which will get worse in the next decades.
|
On May 28 2019 20:41 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2019 20:25 Jockmcplop wrote:
Or yknow, have fewer kids to compensate.
Somehow your forgot that lowering birth rates is an option.
Oh well birth rates are stable so I guess there's nothing we can do, right?
Unfortunately increase in life expectancy is present no matter how inconvenient that is for your argument The birth rates in the world are already so low that they will cause a decline. Read the links. How hard is it to understand? The birth rate is not the population driver. If you want to fix the population growth, you have to fix what drives the population growth. Never mind that the ratio between elders and young people is already a problem (if you like things like pensions, care, etc.) which will get worse in the next decades.
So we have a hard choice to make, right?
What I can't understand is how people fail to see the binary nature of this discussion. Either overpopulation will cause problems that will cause untold suffering or it won't. If you think it won't that's fine, argue from that perspective.
If you think it will but the choices we have to make are too hard so best do nothing and pretend everything's ok, that's a problem for me.
|
On May 28 2019 20:53 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2019 20:41 Neneu wrote:On May 28 2019 20:25 Jockmcplop wrote:
Or yknow, have fewer kids to compensate.
Somehow your forgot that lowering birth rates is an option.
Oh well birth rates are stable so I guess there's nothing we can do, right?
Unfortunately increase in life expectancy is present no matter how inconvenient that is for your argument The birth rates in the world are already so low that they will cause a decline. Read the links. How hard is it to understand? The birth rate is not the population driver. If you want to fix the population growth, you have to fix what drives the population growth. Never mind that the ratio between elders and young people is already a problem (if you like things like pensions, care, etc.) which will get worse in the next decades. So we have a hard choice to make, right? What I can't understand is how people fail to see the binary nature of this discussion. Either overpopulation will cause problems that will cause untold suffering or it won't. If you think it won't that's fine, argue from that perspective. If you think it will but the choices we have to make are too hard so best do nothing and pretend everything's ok, that's a problem for me.
Okey tell me then how you will fix overpopulation, considering that birth rates are already at a point where it causes a decline in population and does not drive population growth.
|
On May 28 2019 20:53 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2019 20:41 Neneu wrote:On May 28 2019 20:25 Jockmcplop wrote:
Or yknow, have fewer kids to compensate.
Somehow your forgot that lowering birth rates is an option.
Oh well birth rates are stable so I guess there's nothing we can do, right?
Unfortunately increase in life expectancy is present no matter how inconvenient that is for your argument The birth rates in the world are already so low that they will cause a decline. Read the links. How hard is it to understand? The birth rate is not the population driver. If you want to fix the population growth, you have to fix what drives the population growth. Never mind that the ratio between elders and young people is already a problem (if you like things like pensions, care, etc.) which will get worse in the next decades. So we have a hard choice to make, right? What I can't understand is how people fail to see the binary nature of this discussion. Either overpopulation will cause problems that will cause untold suffering or it won't. If you think it won't that's fine, argue from that perspective. If you think it will but the choices we have to make are too hard so best do nothing and pretend everything's ok, that's a problem for me.
Again your framing is messed up. The choice is easy (from my perspective), we have to stop the people responsible for the situation from perpetuating it and develop a sustainable society.
Your framing skates past that (necessary step) to advocate people freely discourage people from becoming parents on their facebook feeds as if that's not a ridiculous way to even approach the situation, let alone actually address it.
|
On May 28 2019 20:56 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2019 20:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 28 2019 20:41 Neneu wrote:On May 28 2019 20:25 Jockmcplop wrote:
Or yknow, have fewer kids to compensate.
Somehow your forgot that lowering birth rates is an option.
Oh well birth rates are stable so I guess there's nothing we can do, right?
Unfortunately increase in life expectancy is present no matter how inconvenient that is for your argument The birth rates in the world are already so low that they will cause a decline. Read the links. How hard is it to understand? The birth rate is not the population driver. If you want to fix the population growth, you have to fix what drives the population growth. Never mind that the ratio between elders and young people is already a problem (if you like things like pensions, care, etc.) which will get worse in the next decades. So we have a hard choice to make, right? What I can't understand is how people fail to see the binary nature of this discussion. Either overpopulation will cause problems that will cause untold suffering or it won't. If you think it won't that's fine, argue from that perspective. If you think it will but the choices we have to make are too hard so best do nothing and pretend everything's ok, that's a problem for me. Okey tell me then how you will fix overpopulation, considering that birth rates are already at a point where it causes a decline in population and does not drive population growth.
I have no idea.
Not talking about it because it upsets people probably isn't a good start though.
You seem to be discussing this from the perspective that a decline in population would be bad. I disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
