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.
deleted by creator
No, you reduced malthusianism to a banal statement about total carrying capacity. That's not malthusianism.
Jerkoff motion
No.
Because it's the correct take. Malthus was wrong on population growth. Fundamentally wrong. Populations stabilise as their material conditions improve. A number of countries now have declining populations. Even as populations declined, poverty rates stayed the same or got worse. Malthus' claim was that poverty as it already existed was an outcome of population growth, which was and remains wrong. He displaced understanding the social system and how it produces poverty by claiming it as a natural outcome of factors not related to how society was organised. You're attempting to do the same in fixating the discussion on population growth. Even worse when population growth i.e. having large numbers of children is in fact an outcome of poverty. Reducing poverty reduces the tendency for population growth.
You didn't respond to anything. You did a "well ackshually" and reduced malthusianism to something it isn't. And are now denying you did that.
deleted by creator
Shut the fuck up, you were wrong. Deal with it.
deleted by creator
No. Malthusianism was never just "total carrying capacity exists". You are and remain wrong. The answer to population increase is getting rid of the causes of poverty. Malthus was wrong on practically everything.
Edit:
https://monthlyreview.org/1998/12/01/malthus-essay-on-population-at-age-200/
There's your displacing knowledge, fucking moron.
deleted by creator
That's exactly what you did from the beginning. You don't read your own posts.
You're a dipshit and faux civility shit is tiresome.
deleted by creator