Yes, this IS fine. There’s too many people on this fucking planet. The only reason this is considered a problem is because capitalism and the Bible says so.
No other reason. Period.
There’s too many people on this fucking planet.
There’s really not. The human ecological footprint changes enormously by region. Relatively small populations in countries like Qatar and Brunei punch well outside their weight class in terms of ecological devestation.
A much smaller population that lived at this degree of pollution and destruction would be no better globally.
Low birth rates are a crisis for capitalism, not humanity. And if you count brown countries, it’s not even happening.
Pension schemes are not a biological imperative.
Sounds like a situation that will self correct in a few decades, no?
Technically, probably yes, one way or another…
So what’s your alternative? Infinite growth?
Good. There are too many people. Why do we want to expand on a 7billion+ population when so many of us are struggling? How about we only have as many people as we have resources for everyone having a good life?
I’m not arguing for population growth but we definitely have more than enough resources for everyone now. Scarcity isn’t the problem, it’s that we allow people to hoard those resources and we waste a ton of them.
When we can prove it by providing everyone the same (good) standard of life, across the entire world, then I’ll believe it.
Stuff like everyone has housing, clean safe water, safe to eat food, able to escape from extreme climate swings, healthcare, vacation, parental leave, and I’m sure lots more that I’m not thinking of.
Once everyone has that, then we can look at what we can expand on
“We have enough resources” is such a shitty god damned argument. At least you didn’t go “hurr durr everyone on the planet can fit in Manhattan if they just squeeze tightly”.
But god damned ask yourself what kind of world you want to live in, not min maxxing the number of people alive for some absolutely incomprehensible reason.
“WE CAN SQUEEZE ONE MORE IN THERE, BOYS! SHE CAN TAKE IT!”
For WHAT?! WHY?!
everyone on the planet can fit in Manhattan if they just squeeze tightly
But god damned ask yourself what kind of world you want to live in, not min maxxing the number of people alive for some absolutely incomprehensible reason.
Totally with you on these points. Having lived in NYC it is my conception of ultra-urban hell. Sure, there are worse places. Cairo comes to mind. But this idea that we just have to warehouse people to keep them from having massive sprawling impact on the planet is absolutely the most wrong way to think about it, IMO. I hate when people argue that if we just tighten our belts and accept a lower standard of living, everyone can be accommodated with low environmental impact. I go the other way: if there were few enough people (and hoarding/profiteering was curtailed), beachfront and slopeside real estate would be cheap.
You people, I swear. I said specifically that I’m not arguing for increased population and yet your whole response is structured like that’s exactly what I said we should do. Do you even read what you respond to or do you just scan until you find the right key word to launch into a rant?
Well if we could make everyone have a good quality of life and not destroy the environment and at the same time have more people to enjoy life and to help drive innovation and art, it would generally be for the better.
I don’t think you comprehend exactly how large a number 7 billion actually is. There’s plenty of innovation and art potential already.
Currently a good portion of those people are barely surviving and don’t have bandwidth for art or effective innovation. But that’s not really the point. If people are happy and have a good quality of life, and there’s no negatives, then more is better because it’s more happiness.
I’m not arguing against concentration of wealth and hoarding by the ultra-rich, which is obviously a problem, but I have said recently: everyone could live like a modern-day billionaire if there were fewer people.
Too often the argument pivots the other way and turns into: if we all eat plants, live in ultradense cities with dystopian warehousing of people, and nobody has a car, we could be in ecological harmony with 8B+ people. I don’t like that angle.
If “Westerners”, or “the global North”, or “developed countries” are consuming more than “our fair share” of resources while some significant fraction of the 8B+ humans are in poverty, that’s not ideal. On the other hand I want my standard of living to increase, not decrease, and I find making concessions a hard sell.
But think about the profits! We need more people to exploit, if there aren’t enough people to replace those who demand disgusting things like “actual living wages” with ones that are just happy to get any job at all, where do you think we’ll end up?? We’d have to actually value workers, no, human life itself, instead of just pretending to do so while treating them all as replaceable as they are! And, most importantly, this would hurt my bottom line! I need a new yacht this year, ok? You just don’t understand how important my wants truly are, ok?? So stop spreading such nonsense! ~ Pretty much every CEO out there, probably
would it be better if the population was growing past 9bn?
There’s a stable population the ecosystem can support and I’m pretty sure 9bn is too fuckin many.
not that I’m volunteering to free up space tho… there’s a whole lot of techbro chuds who think there’s way too many people, but their motivations are pretty genocidal tbh.
honestly we’re fucked in either direction, but I suspect there’s a lot of reasons the population total will go down once the climate crisis starts shifting millions of people around.
yes growth would be better for me so there are more young people to support the old people
I don’t have enough to give so much to old people
more young people to support the old people
But human labor is incredibly efficienct in the modern day. You don’t need ten young people for every one old person - nine of whom die by their mid-30s - so that everyone doesn’t starve.
But the role of elderly people has changed so much in the last century. On a national scale, they’re no longer master craftsmen or child caregivers or elder advisors. They’re just the base of the consumer economy and the electoral pool.
As democracy fails and the economy becomes more fixated on tech capital than quality of life, they’re marked out as increasingly expendable.
It isn’t that we need more young people so much as we’ve alienated and de-skilled our old people.
selfish prick wants the population to grow so he has more servants at the nursing home
Oh no, who did this? (sarcasm. a few people have gone out of their way to ensure everyone else’s suffering)
Karma for them being dicks.
they’re hiring caregivers like crazy in my state
Unionizing opportunity.
I don’t owe the future anything.
I don’t give a fuck if our species survives. Why should I?
Everything ends someday.
The issue is we don’t just go straight from point A to B, rather there’s a long period of suffering.
It is indeed fine. In 1900 there were about 1.6 milliard people, versus the 8.3 today.
Oh no we are running out of people!
It’ll be fine. The baby boom our grandparents cane from was an anomaly
The US baby boom is not really meaningful on a global scale
Sure, but only the inner lips of the labia matter
Minora supremacist
Baby boomers also had more kids than the generation that preceded them. So did Gen X. Millennials are the first to fail to even replace their own population.
They’re slow off the mark, averaging 27-28 for the first child rather than 22.
Robots will take care of us. Meanwhile we’ll be begging for death and they will keep us alive -_-
look at the bright side, in about 10 years, housing will become affordable again
I don’t see a problem.
-Satan
