If you think the earth is dying because poor people are having too many babies, that's about three logical steps away from ecofascism.
If you think the earth is dying because poor people are having too many babies, that's about three logical steps away from ecofascism.
This is why I said Malthus is a Strawman. Maybe there are some 17-year-olds on Twitter who just learned about Malthus but today basically nobody concerned about overpopulation is concerned because of starvation. It's a concern because if we are to raise the standard of living of billions of people (which we should) we are going to necessarily increase their carbon emissions.
To answer your question the numbers come from average climate emissions relative to the ability of the Earth to act as a carbon sink.
What in the world? See this is the problem. Basically nobody except for some weird freaks think the overpopulation issue should be solved by killing people. How you got there from what I typed says a lot about your ability to discuss this rationally.
deleted by creator
Cool, nbd. I will say though, if it really is disturbingly common to think overpopulation should be solved by killing people on the global south why have I literally never heard a single person say it, in person or in media?
Like I'm sure if I went looking on the internet for communities with heinous views I could dig up an example, but literally the only time I hear that idea is when some anarchist is going on about how ecofascism is some sort of serious problem.
deleted by creator
Again, literally never heard anybody say that ever. Are you sure you're not projecting that onto them in the same way you did me, since this topic is triggering to you?
Basically all the libs I see talking about this do so with the lens of empowering and educating women, increasing access to contraceptives, and raising the standard of living (which is correlated with a reduction in birth rates) etc. I've never seen a single person seriously advocate solving this with murder.
deleted by creator