For a species that can calculate derivatives, project ballistic trajectories, and estimate sales volumes, it is astounding that humans stubbornly refuse to even acknowledge the negative effects of …
Especially for Monbiot, the usual argument is that the problem is not all humans, but only the rich humans. As a biologist I can tell you this argument is invalid, because rich and poor humans are identical biologically, therefore they have the same natural propensity for overconsumption, destruction and waste, given the chance. Aside from that, “poor” humans are equally wasteful to rich humans, when you consider their huge number compared to the rich. The contribution of poor people to the climate crisis and ecological collapse on this planet is immense, despite the fact that on an individual basis it is negligible compared to rich people. What matters is total impact on the planet, not per capita.
When you're attempting to conflate the rich with humanity and then using that as an argument against at least the depopulation of the rich, it might be best to not reference a biologist that clearly has no idea what they dont know that they don't know. Even a climatologist would be better.
rich people are the ones making all of our general economic and societal decisions
of course, I'm just quoting from the dog shit essay in the OP to show how wrong it is
Biologists are not psychologists nor sociologists.
so why should i care what they have to say about these topics
When you're attempting to conflate the rich with humanity and then using that as an argument against at least the depopulation of the rich, it might be best to not reference a biologist that clearly has no idea what they dont know that they don't know. Even a climatologist would be better.
I'm not agreeing with the text lol I've clearly said I think it's total dogshit