Even if they were to blame population, it's telling that these people don't see increasing our capacity to comfortably support a growing population as a noble goal. It's always people wanting to have a big purge instead.
"Let's rethink production based on private property, use energy more efficiently, preserve wildlife and flora! We can even-"
"Ew"
It’s easier to imagine genocide than it is to imagine reduction in consumption or redistribution.
Trump is thanos and biden is captain america, go out and vote people 😎
Malthusian theory is currently taught as fact and part of UK curriculum, still cant believe I was forced to learn it
I used to agree, but now I'm watching COVID chew through a solid 2-3% of the population with Climate Change fast on it's heels.
A few months ago the BBC broadcast a 'documentary' full of Mathusian/diet ecofash bullshit, the cynic in me thinks it'll be in the regular British media discourse soon enough
the lib overpopulation global warming thing is mostly them just hating sitting in traffic
The worst part about studying geography is that Malthusian theory is taught as a valid idea
Keep the word nazi out of this meme and it'll be even more effective :fire:
Overpopulation theory is the effect of low-tier racism in the population. Couple hundreds of years ago people would have said "they have too many children" about people in the village 10 miles away that they don't like.
It literally isn't a problem how many humans we have on this earth at the moment and apparently due to slowed growth will never become a problem.
Here's a UN summary of studies on how many people the planet can support sustainably. An optimistic average is around 8 billion. A lot of people who consider population a non-factor assume current consumption level or that anyone living on $2/day purchasing parity (i.e. what $2 could buy in NY) is not in poverty and is consuming enough.
If cause all the reactionary "cull the undesirables" talk on the issue is stupid and the best ways to curb population growth turn out to be education, access to contraception, women's rights, robust social safety net (so the parents don't have to depend on their children).
Still, obviously it's easier to provide a standard of living if there are less people on a finite planet going though a man-made ecological catastrophe.
I wouldn't have as much of a problem with Malthusians if they realized that their own existence being cancelled would have about the same effect on emissions and consumption as like 5 third world residents
I've heard a lot of stats they used about green energy where either wrong or outdated.
The "factual accuracy" tab on film's Wikipedia page might be an ok place to start...
The general consensus of leftists who are into ecology is that movie is right that just green tech under capitalism won't be enough to stop global warming, but it uses outdated stats, unnesesarily shits on a bunch of activists and instead of coming to the right conclusion, that we need socialism, degrowth AND green tech, it just goes black pill and ends up giving ammunition to reactionaries in the end.
