1 percent of the people consume 50% of the public resources. Meanwhile they want you to be concerned about "overpopulation" among the poorest and hardest working people on Earth who consume the fewest resources per capita. :thinkin-lenin:
I mean overpopulation is an issue so long as people continue trying to live like Americans. It's a real problem and I'm someone who lives in the global south. The Americans consume way more than we do, but we'd be doing the same if we had the same standard of living as the rich here have proven. The economic system needs a complete overhaul or else a growing population that strives to live like the global north will be a problem.
That being said, I'm not advocating wiping out the population or whatever other eco-fash solutions are out there.
Framing issues of consumption and pollution and overproduction as "overpopulation" has always had racist undertones.
so long as people continue trying to live like Americans
not even "living like Americans" since most Americans are poor, but living like wealthy Americans. It's America's military, America's corporations, and America's bourgeois class that consume more resources and emit more carbon than the vast majority of the population. There is no reason to throw America's prisoners, America's homeless, America's immigrants, America's LGBT/BIPOC minorities and American's proletarians under the umbrella of "overpopulation" or "living like Americans" since Americans are incredibly class stratified.
That being said, I’m not advocating wiping out the population or whatever other eco-fash solutions are out there.
Still you don't want to start off any statement with "I mean overpopulation is an issue" regardless of what nuance comes afterwards because overpopulation is not the issue at all.
This is the correct take on population conversations. Tie it to the standard of living, recognize that everyone wants a high (i.e., American) standard of living, then acknowledge that it's easier for the planet to support 10 billion people with a high standard of living than 100 billion.
The key point to add, though, is that the only way to slow population growth is to give women economic autonomy and political power. Turns out top-down stuff like China's one child policy (or India's U.S.-backed population control measures) aren't actually associated with lowering birthrates, but giving women control over having kids is.
1 percent of the people consume 50% of the public resources. Meanwhile they want you to be concerned about "overpopulation" among the poorest and hardest working people on Earth who consume the fewest resources per capita. :thinkin-lenin:
Yeah I’m a Malthusian—just start with the people consuming the most, and go until you’ve got yourself something resembling sustainability.
I mean overpopulation is an issue so long as people continue trying to live like Americans. It's a real problem and I'm someone who lives in the global south. The Americans consume way more than we do, but we'd be doing the same if we had the same standard of living as the rich here have proven. The economic system needs a complete overhaul or else a growing population that strives to live like the global north will be a problem.
That being said, I'm not advocating wiping out the population or whatever other eco-fash solutions are out there.
see this video, 3:40 through 6:30
Framing issues of consumption and pollution and overproduction as "overpopulation" has always had racist undertones.
not even "living like Americans" since most Americans are poor, but living like wealthy Americans. It's America's military, America's corporations, and America's bourgeois class that consume more resources and emit more carbon than the vast majority of the population. There is no reason to throw America's prisoners, America's homeless, America's immigrants, America's LGBT/BIPOC minorities and American's proletarians under the umbrella of "overpopulation" or "living like Americans" since Americans are incredibly class stratified.
Still you don't want to start off any statement with "I mean overpopulation is an issue" regardless of what nuance comes afterwards because overpopulation is not the issue at all.
This is the correct take on population conversations. Tie it to the standard of living, recognize that everyone wants a high (i.e., American) standard of living, then acknowledge that it's easier for the planet to support 10 billion people with a high standard of living than 100 billion.
The key point to add, though, is that the only way to slow population growth is to give women economic autonomy and political power. Turns out top-down stuff like China's one child policy (or India's U.S.-backed population control measures) aren't actually associated with lowering birthrates, but giving women control over having kids is.