• thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    13 days ago

    Over population is a problem just because we occupy 10% of the land doesn’t mean we should double it to 20%? Do you know how much of the earths biosphere that would continue to chew into? Even if we farm more efficiently it doesn’t mean there should be more of us shitting around

  • brownsugga@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    12 days ago

    I think the point is that we already live in a post-scarcity world, or rather in a manufactured-scarcity world

  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    12 days ago

    It’s wild how ideas like this continue to exist despite being so contrary to evidence and reason, just because it shifts blame away from systemic issues and the ruling class.

  • Folstar@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    12 days ago

    Our rapidly depleting aquifers being used to produce those resources would suggest there are too many people.

  • finnadrag@lazysoci.al
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    total emissions = emissions per capita * capita

    Unless we figure out carbon neutrality without cratering HDI in the next year or two maybe lets work on reducing birth rates. ‘we could have 20 billion people if we all live like subsistence farmers’ is fucking stupid.

    • brownsugga@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      12 days ago

      except that not all “capita” have same emissions. someone in Eritrea has a much smaller “carbon footprint” (a term invented by BP to distract from their own wanton disregard for the environment) than a billionaire in the western world

      • finnadrag@lazysoci.al
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        12 days ago

        Yes that means it’s less important to reduce birth rate in Eritrea than in the US or Australia or whatever. As long as you’re either not concerned about raising their HDI rapidly or you think it can raise without per capita emissions rising with it and good luck with that.

  • Avicenna@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    Overpopulation and billionaires can be part of the problem at the same time. We can produce so much resources because of the capitalist approach of cutting corners and going cheap at the expense of environment. More ethical ways of producing stuff would mean significantly less than what we have now which would require less population. Moreover it is funny to call this the ecofascist rhetoric because implementation of the idea presented in the OP would require forced displacement of billions of people living in cities to rural areas at best, to deserts and tundras at worst.

    Also people like Elon who thinks they should distribute their sperm all around the world is at the intersection. So no matter which way one chooses they are always the problem so maybe we can agree to start with them and see if it gets better.

    • Oppopity@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 days ago

      It’s ecofascism when people pin it on humanity in general and not capitalism. The solution is changing our economic system to one that would allow us to live alongside nature rather than destroying it, and not to simply kill off a chunk of the population to address “overpopulation”.

      • Avicenna@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        100% capitalism is the main source. And definitely not kill but engrave in people’s minds that trying to have five children is selfish. If your action is the kind of action “if everyone does it, it is a big problem but because they don’t I can do it” then there is a very good chance that it is a selfish behaviour. Reducing population will I think transform capitalist economy too. Less work force means higher demand for it and therefore companies will eventually have to pay higher wages. Less population means less demand for products and therefore capitalistic way of “cutting corners” mode of mass production will likely be not as profitable. Sure therewill always be people trying to capitalize on new means of production and yeah I also agree that changing the economic system will be required to prevent. But even changing the economic system will be easier with less population.

        • Oppopity@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 days ago

          The more disenfranchised workers the more power they have and the easier it would be to replace the system.

  • regdog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    12 days ago

    Hear me out: I think that “overpopulation” exists, but only in developed countries.

  • sobchak@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    13 days ago

    Replace “sustainable,” and the bit about profit and capitalism, with “efficient” and “corruption and un-free markets,” then this is a common right-wing talking point (back when the right wing tried to engage intellectually, at least).

    In my unscientific opinion, the current population is unsustainable, and there’s no known ways to make it sustainable enough to support the population in the long term (I hope there will be, of course). The most sustainable framing practices are less intensive and result in less output per acre. That’s just about survival, ignoring quality of life. I’ve heard it claimed we’d need 5 Earths for everyone on Earth to live a first-world-like lifestyle. Granted, we should drastically change our lifestyles.

    Climate change will also likely lower the human population the Earth can support, and I think we will likely adopt even less sustainable practices to make up for the loss, accelerating our own demise; kicking and scratching and bringing all the ecosystems of the Earth down with us.

    • Brainsploosh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 days ago

      First world lifestyles are indeed unsustainable, but not due to food scarcity. We have a global overproduction of food, due in part to logistical inefficiencies but in a larger part due to free market economics with artificial scarcity to drive up prices.

      Organic farm practices currently yield about 20-30% less than less sustainable ones. Current US food wastage is 40 % of produced goods. So at least the US could switch over it’s food supply to organic farming and still feed everyone on the same acreage.

      There’s plenty other resource usage that first-worlders need to cut back on, mostly petrochemicals and plastics in everything from travel (make walkable cities) to novelty consumption (buy it for life).

  • Boomer Humor Doomergod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    Yes! Cover the earth in medium-density mixed-zoning tram neighborhoods! Anyone who doesn’t want to give the entire planet to one species is Malthusian!

  • Etterra@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    If you switch to vertical farming then the only limitation on population is based solely on the heat output generated by humans and our technology.

  • BoxOfFeet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    12 days ago

    Even if it is feasible, I still encounter twice as many people as I want to on a daily basis. I want to live on Solaria, from Isaac Asimov’s The Naked Sun.

  • brachiosaurus@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    12 days ago

    We also have an information problem. As long as we debate fundamental problems on centralized platforms through memes nothing ever will be resolved. Stop upvoting this shit please and share better content.

  • Kokesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    13 days ago

    … qnd all other wpecies can F themselves… Too many people as it is now.