5 ms·

Indeed there are probably a few loons who hold this view explicitly. But there are large numbers that hold this view implicitly - ie, they would never say they

Indeed there are probably a few loons who hold this view explicitly. But there are large numbers that hold this view implicitly - ie, they would never say they want fewer people, but if you actually followed their their preferred course of action, fewer people would be required. I should note that I'm not a conservative and I also find their lack of concern for the environment to be at odds with their own interests and ideology, but what I'm talking about is slightly different. To be an environmentalist doesn't mean sharing some goals, it means having to sign up to a very specific set of views, which ostensibly lead to that goal. Being anti-nuclear power is one of those specific views you have to hold, so being pro-nuclear puts you at odds with most environmentalists, even if both sides of the view lead to the same goal (less CO2 in the atmosphere).

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
We're on a finite planet and numbers are increasing rapidly. Very few countries have a reducing population - Japan, and well, that's about it. At some point the solution has to be fewer people. Looking at the world's pressing problems with loss of species, diversity, soils, climate change etc; all are hugely exacerbated by numbers. Even if we were to perfect interstellar or interplanetary travel we're unlikely to be sending billions. So what is your solution? Anyone who doesn't hold the view that the planet needs fewer humans, in the foreseeable future, is simply ignoring the problem.
- martythemaniak 8y ago
  The numbers are increasing, but leveling off. High fertility rates only exist in a few regions of the world (Africa, South Asia) and even there they are falling rapidly. The "solution" broadly speaking is higher intensity - of energy, land, everything. If you have compact energy sources (nuclear) powering compact food production (high-yield agriculture, some vertical farming) feeding people living in compact cities (higher density, more ridesharing), then it's doable. You can already see lots of signs of this in the developed countries. This will still require lots of adjustment from people, but asking them to live in duplexes, share rides and eat less meat is much more doable than asking them no you know, not exist. The Breakthrough does lots of great research on this topic: https://thebreakthrough.org/ https://thebreakthrough.org/
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    That may buy a little time, but unless or until the numbers actually start falling it doesn't actually solve the problem. It's not asking them not to exist, I can't foresee compulsory euthanasia camps, it's merely asking them to limit procreation. China shows it's doable - though I'm sure there's better ways to achieve limits. At least that gives our future generations a chance of experiencing some of the things that make life interesting with still functional ecosystem and wildlands.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

We're on a finite planet and numbers are increasing rapidly. Very few countries have a reducing population - Japan, and well, that's about it. At some point the solution has to be fewer people. Looking at the world's pressing problems with loss of species, diversity, soils, climate change etc; all are hugely exacerbated by numbers. Even if we were to perfect interstellar or interplanetary travel we're unlikely to be sending billions. So what is your solution? Anyone who doesn't hold the view that the planet needs fewer humans, in the foreseeable future, is simply ignoring the problem.

martythemaniak 8y ago
The numbers are increasing, but leveling off. High fertility rates only exist in a few regions of the world (Africa, South Asia) and even there they are falling rapidly. The "solution" broadly speaking is higher intensity - of energy, land, everything. If you have compact energy sources (nuclear) powering compact food production (high-yield agriculture, some vertical farming) feeding people living in compact cities (higher density, more ridesharing), then it's doable. You can already see lots of signs of this in the developed countries. This will still require lots of adjustment from people, but asking them to live in duplexes, share rides and eat less meat is much more doable than asking them no you know, not exist. The Breakthrough does lots of great research on this topic: https://thebreakthrough.org/ https://thebreakthrough.org/
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  That may buy a little time, but unless or until the numbers actually start falling it doesn't actually solve the problem. It's not asking them not to exist, I can't foresee compulsory euthanasia camps, it's merely asking them to limit procreation. China shows it's doable - though I'm sure there's better ways to achieve limits. At least that gives our future generations a chance of experiencing some of the things that make life interesting with still functional ecosystem and wildlands.