Halving billionaires rapidly will help the earth
Bullshit.
Scientists have known for years now that the earth can support far more than our current population, and that’s WITH our current technology. The primary issue isn’t the earth’s carrying capacity, it’s the distribution, political and economic systems we use to manage that carrying capacity.
To put it bluntly, we have more than enough resources to feed everyone without terrorizing the environment, but we’d rather let people starve and die homeless than give those resources away for no profit.
Population isn’t the problem. Capitalism is the problem.
Also, most of articles like this one are eugenicist/genocide propaganda.
What’s crazy is the article says in 200 years. At the pace we are going we could easily do that in 80 years. The only places we are seeing positive populations are mostly Africa which is 1.5 billion even if it grew by 50% the rest of the world has birthrates approaching 1 child for every woman dropping populations in half every 25 years.
Yea, fuck these articles trying to push eugenics. We currently have falling birth rates across the globe yet food production per person is still increasing.
These concerns about overpopulation have plagued public discourse since the fucking 60s and 70s as a distraction from talking about sustainable practices that don’t align with the interests of capitalist economics. The problem isn’t the size of our population but the structure of our resource production and distribution.
Before we start trying to justify the systemic prevention of human procreation (eugenics) and dictate who can and can’t have children, let’s fix the fucking wanton waste that we create in the neverending pursuit of fucking profits.
Waaaaaaaay before the 1960s actually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus
Or just end the few thousand billionaires who are literally more damaging to earth than the rest of us combined… But sure, much easier to just kick back and let 4 billion of the rest of us die suffering instead.
That website is a fucking dumpster fire.
Swipe for next article
How about letting me finish reading the article?
No! 🔔
“A more modest population – gently easing population to 4 billion by 2200 – would protect Earth’s natural heritage, including its wild habitats, wild species, and its climate. Such a world is within our grasp,” they concluded.
I think we could easily see the global population drop back to 4 billion well before 2200, but it almost certainly won’t be “gentle.” Wars, famine and disease, more likely.
For some context, the global population was about 4 billion in 1974-1975, so a little over 50 years ago. It’s very natural for a population crash to follow such a relatively sudden population explosion.
The Earth is finite. We do not have infinite resources so we can’t grow - in population, production or consumption - forever. We will hit the physical limits to growth eventually, and when we do there will likely be a sudden and dramatic collapse.
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.
Reducing suburbs could also help a lot. Use the vertical space!
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.
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
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).
Birthrates in developed nations have already plummeted with the introduction of the anti baby pill. We don’t need to hit any resource barriers for a population decline.
Birthrates in developed nations have already plummeted with the introduction of the anti baby pill. We don’t need to hit any resource barriers for a population decline.
The global population projections I’ve seen estimate the world’s population continuing to increase to about 10.3 billion by sometime in the 2080s, and then beginning a slow decline from there. I can’t say for sure where the limits to growth are, but I think we will reach them before then. Of course I could be wrong, but that’s what my gut tells me.
And a big reason for that isn’t just the growth in global population that is expected to continue for several more decades, but the imperative for economic growth, even in already very wealthy countries with advanced economies (and declining birthrates). When we do inevitability hit these physical resource barriers (and again I think that will happen before global population is projected to peak and begin declining), I think we will experience a significant global economic crisis that could plunge hundreds of millions, if not billions, back into extreme poverty, and that could cause average life expectancy to decline dramatically and infant mortality to increase. I think that could lead to a pretty significant and probably very sudden drop in global population, especially if it is accompanied by war and agricultural disruptions from climate impacts.
Oh great idea! Let’s gradually start with the rich and then we just stop.
Population reduction is mostly an economic problem that gets really wacky because of the dependency ratio. Right now we’re already having issues with equal amount per age group but if elderly start becoming disproportionately large group it’ll be hard to support them.
Retirement savings are now more important than ever.
I hate these framings. It’s not about “helping earth”. The earth doesn’t care. About anything. It’s a rock. The point is about keeping earth habitable for humans. It’s about helping humans.
And animals and plants. The fungi and bacteria will be fine (in fact I can feel them eagerly awaiting all the corpses). I’d argue that whales care a lot, and if they knew what we were doing they’d ram a lot more cruise ships.
Ok, let’s start by getting rid of the people sorted by net wealth. Would be fun to see if we’d actually lose any significant knowledge.
I reckon having 0 human population would really help Earth.
Don’t worry, we’re getting there.
The Earth will do it itself when it needs to.
She already tried with Covid 19. Let’s see what she tries next time.
deleted by creator
