5 ms·

> Usually when people say 'overpopulation' they mean the irrational counter-emphasis, ie. "they should stop having babies, so we can keep driving vast CO2-spewi

> Usually when people say 'overpopulation' they mean the irrational counter-emphasis, ie. "they should stop having babies, so we can keep driving vast CO2-spewing SUVs, eating scads of industrially-produced meat, and generally fouling our rapidly decaying nest". Not necessarily. Both overpopulation and climate change are problems. Even folks who don't drive CO2-spewing SUVs understand that. (I 'drive' a bicycle while spewing CO2 out my mouth, so there.)

crispinb 8y ago
Well, yes, but that doesn't contradict what I'm saying. "Usually" implies "not necessarily". It's trivially true that population is part of the equation. But it's pragmatically irrelevant to short-medium term policy when we know we are in a state of critical global emergency, with natural systems collapsing apace. Policy needs to address that right now. I doubt the "overpopulation!" expostulators are really proposing a human cull as policy. I'm not sure what else that leaves as their motivation other than misdirection.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  I see, and agree.
  - crispinb 8y ago
    Cool. To clarify: of course we'll need to find some way to keep a check on human population. But it's a generational policy issue which we won't remotely have the global social/political stability to address if we don't substantially curb CO2 emissions in the next few decades.
- starbeast 8y ago
  >I doubt the "overpopulation!" expostulators are really proposing a human cull as policy. I share a house with two who claim to be. They do shut up about it when I suggest that they go first however.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  If we don't start to address it the cull will come "naturally" via starvation, war, migration and so on. No need to propose a human cull. Simply make large families something socially unacceptable and promote via campaigns and the tax system. It could easily change as extensively and rapidly as single earner family with stay at home mothers have. It has to be part of any rational solution.
  - mac01021 8y ago
    How does the cull come via migration?
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      Forced migration will come to affect millions if climate change is not constrained as homelands are lost to sea or become uninhabitable. So there will be large numbers attempting to migrate over land or sea without certain destination. There'll be dying en route, and presumably will eventually be forcibly rebuffed at borders when numbers get large enough. Aid agencies will likely be far beyond ability to cope. We've seen this in far smaller numbers with those attempting to cross the Med etc in unseaworthy overloaded boats, and the associated deaths. Of course there's also likely to be disease and starvation in any ad hoc refugee camps that arise.
      - ataturk 8y ago
        Most of the overloaded boats I saw were brand new rafts supplied by an NGO in order to create a humanitarian crisis across Europe. Crisis leads to political response. It's an age old tactic, just a different riff than the usual hordes of sword-wielding barbarians.

crispinb 8y ago

Well, yes, but that doesn't contradict what I'm saying. "Usually" implies "not necessarily". It's trivially true that population is part of the equation. But it's pragmatically irrelevant to short-medium term policy when we know we are in a state of critical global emergency, with natural systems collapsing apace. Policy needs to address that right now. I doubt the "overpopulation!" expostulators are really proposing a human cull as policy. I'm not sure what else that leaves as their motivation other than misdirection.

craftyguy 8y ago
I see, and agree.
- crispinb 8y ago
  Cool. To clarify: of course we'll need to find some way to keep a check on human population. But it's a generational policy issue which we won't remotely have the global social/political stability to address if we don't substantially curb CO2 emissions in the next few decades.
starbeast 8y ago
>I doubt the "overpopulation!" expostulators are really proposing a human cull as policy. I share a house with two who claim to be. They do shut up about it when I suggest that they go first however.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
If we don't start to address it the cull will come "naturally" via starvation, war, migration and so on. No need to propose a human cull. Simply make large families something socially unacceptable and promote via campaigns and the tax system. It could easily change as extensively and rapidly as single earner family with stay at home mothers have. It has to be part of any rational solution.
- mac01021 8y ago
  How does the cull come via migration?
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Forced migration will come to affect millions if climate change is not constrained as homelands are lost to sea or become uninhabitable. So there will be large numbers attempting to migrate over land or sea without certain destination. There'll be dying en route, and presumably will eventually be forcibly rebuffed at borders when numbers get large enough. Aid agencies will likely be far beyond ability to cope. We've seen this in far smaller numbers with those attempting to cross the Med etc in unseaworthy overloaded boats, and the associated deaths. Of course there's also likely to be disease and starvation in any ad hoc refugee camps that arise.
    - ataturk 8y ago
      Most of the overloaded boats I saw were brand new rafts supplied by an NGO in order to create a humanitarian crisis across Europe. Crisis leads to political response. It's an age old tactic, just a different riff than the usual hordes of sword-wielding barbarians.