• ramble81@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    3 days ago

    I’d actually argue that the Earth could sustain more people than we have now, and quite comfortably. The issue is the massive inequality in distribution of resources that is preventing it.

    • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Agreed, though I feel like having fewer people would at least give the planet some extra cushion for natural human inefficiencies. (Though I’m open to being totally wrong on this. I’m not an expert.)

      Though any talk of population management is obviously ripe for eugenics (hell it basically is eugenics), or problematicizing the working poor especially in areas most likely to produce climate refugees. When its the most wealthy countries that actually take more than their share (something about removing the plank from your own eye there…).

      Increases in equity and access to birth control are enough on their own from what I’ve read, but you wouldn’t think it to hear the neo Malthusians eco fascists go on.

      • No_Eponym@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        having fewer people would at least give the planet some extra cushion

        Right, because the billionaires wouldn’t use that as an excuse to dump more wasteful externalities on the rest of us to use up that cushion and pad their profits.

        I read comments like this and all I hear is

        • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Yeah then there’s that. In my head this is not a solution to any of our current problems, but like a hypothetical to when we’ve got our shit figured out (buried all the Bs).