china had the one child policy for many years, it prevented starvation. who honestly thinks the earth can support 30 billion people without a serious decline in quality of life?
You must log in or register to comment.
Being against "overpopulation" isn't necessarily a fascistic thing but:
1)-The world is never going to have 30 billion people, most models predict that we'll hit 12-13 billion and then decline from there on.
2)A lot of takes about overpopulation ignore that a big reason behind the growing population is the lack of access to quality family planning and sexual education in developing countries. This combined with how there are still some countries in which having multiple children is basically necessary if you are poor drives population up. Takes on overpopulation that account for these facts and aim to solve it by helping the developing world aren't fascistic, however simply ignoring these factors can lead to people being racists against those from developing countries for "breeding like rabbits" etc.
3)A lot of overpopulation fearmongering comes from Malthusian ideas of the 20th century, which leftists are of course suspicious of
4)Those in developed countries on average consume way more than than those in developing countries, and a lot of food in the first world goes to waste, so an economic system that distributes resources with less waste and with more focus on human dignity could make it so that we could be using less resources while having higher a population.
Can you explain why Malthusian was wrong and Marx and Engels were right? Is technological progress really unlimited?
but water, oil, farmable land, and precious metals are some things humans can comprehend are getting scarcer.
Nope, stuff like that is way out of my playing field, I was simply stating that leftists in general don't like Malthusianism very much. You have to make your own mind about who is right.
well how much consumption should an ideal human life have? assuming all resources are equally distributed among all 30 billion people there wouldn't be a lot to go around. i agree with you that humanity as it is now is overconsuming, but how much square feet should a single person have private to themselves? what kind of personal property should someone be allowed to own if there's 30 billion people compared to 8 billion. how much would the environment be harmed in the best case scenario feeding 30 billion people compared to 8 billion. i want to own a cell phone, i want to drink alcohol, i want to be able to take a shit on my own toilet. living in communal bunks is not something i can support.
it’s pretty privileged to be against population growth because too many people = not enough iphone
I agree with the sentiment but it's not really offering an answer to the OP's concerns. Telling imperial core people who have lived their whole lives with cell phones that they have to give them up because it's privileged to keep them is not a convincing line. Expecting that they'll actually willingly accept their loss is idealistic.
I think it would be better to explain to @pedik that most modern smartphones are built to be easy to break and hard to independently repair, because then people having to keep buying new ones. It's possible to build much hardier, more easliy-repaired-and-upgraded phones, which would expand access and lessen material demand, but that would eat too much into corporate profits.
Oh so you're not even asking questions, you just want to own the libs. Piss off then.
Quick question how do you stop people from fucking, and how do you do that in such a way that doesn't infringe on bodiliy autonomy, considering that yes, even the one child policy was flawed, which is why even China has revoked it.
you cant stop people from fucking but you can provide them with free contraceptives.
The thing the overpopulation argument misses, imo, is that as people get richer they stop having as many kids. So the real solution here is contraceptives and redistribution of income, alongside degrowth policies.
