5 ms·

Overpopulation is a dangerous myth typically pushed by those advocating for genocide.

lunias 7y ago
I fail to see how overpopulation is a myth. While I believe that we could raise the bar for how many humans the Earth can support at one time; I also believe that it's difficult to argue that our current trajectory is sustainable without relying on some not-guaranteed advancements. The solution to creating a better future for humans is planning, not genocide.
- thescriptkiddie 7y ago
  Okay, I'll bite. Overpopulation certainly could be a concern in the future, but we aren't there yet, and things seem to be moving in the right direction. Over the past half-century we have seen birth rates dropping fast, particularly in the "third world", and many "first world" countries are already below replacement rates. Add in the fact that the average human has a dramatically smaller environmental footprint than the average American, and it becomes clear that the problem is not the number of people, but the inefficient use of resources. We have enough to provide for everyone, it just isn't evenly distributed.
  - lunias 7y ago
    I think all of your points are valid, but I'm not convinced that there is only one best solution worth pursuing. For instance, reframing the issue as a problem with the distribution of resources makes sense, but I wonder to what extent the actual problem is people's unwillingness to distribute themselves; i.e. go closer to where the resources are. People want to live where the people are; where the things and the jobs are, and it's these overpopulated urban / industrial centers that people collect in which have the large environmental footprints. Basically, the population is sustainable if people decide to change their values; move out of cities, distribute themselves across the available land, participate in self-sufficient local economies / work remotely, etc. I just don't believe that betting on people changing according to some timeline to be a winning bet.
pvaldes 7y ago
Agree. The idea of "there are too many humans" plus robot soldiers (instead human soldiers that would be "culled" in war), can lead only to a bleak future when some politician on drugs concludes that the only way out to keep their lifestyle is sending the robots to kill people massively. To kill us Condoning unfair debt created thousands of years ago to alleviate pressure over ecosystems is out of the table, as usual.
slowhand09 7y ago
I think overpopulation is having/growing a population larger than you can support. I think this definition scales also. Don't have more kids than you can afford to feed and educate. This applies to families and to countries. Societies facilitate this thru cooperation. Regarding places like sub-Saharan Africa, the land was ravaged to the point of desertification where they cannot grow food. And disease ravages them in a way that they have 5 children hoping 1 or 2 will survive to adulthood. Perhaps large-scale change can turn the tide on the desertification, so they can feed their population. And so they can fight disease and survive.

I fail to see how overpopulation is a myth. While I believe that we could raise the bar for how many humans the Earth can support at one time; I also believe that it's difficult to argue that our current trajectory is sustainable without relying on some not-guaranteed advancements. The solution to creating a better future for humans is planning, not genocide.

thescriptkiddie 7y ago
Okay, I'll bite. Overpopulation certainly could be a concern in the future, but we aren't there yet, and things seem to be moving in the right direction. Over the past half-century we have seen birth rates dropping fast, particularly in the "third world", and many "first world" countries are already below replacement rates. Add in the fact that the average human has a dramatically smaller environmental footprint than the average American, and it becomes clear that the problem is not the number of people, but the inefficient use of resources. We have enough to provide for everyone, it just isn't evenly distributed.
- lunias 7y ago
  I think all of your points are valid, but I'm not convinced that there is only one best solution worth pursuing. For instance, reframing the issue as a problem with the distribution of resources makes sense, but I wonder to what extent the actual problem is people's unwillingness to distribute themselves; i.e. go closer to where the resources are. People want to live where the people are; where the things and the jobs are, and it's these overpopulated urban / industrial centers that people collect in which have the large environmental footprints. Basically, the population is sustainable if people decide to change their values; move out of cities, distribute themselves across the available land, participate in self-sufficient local economies / work remotely, etc. I just don't believe that betting on people changing according to some timeline to be a winning bet.

pvaldes 7y ago

Agree. The idea of "there are too many humans" plus robot soldiers (instead human soldiers that would be "culled" in war), can lead only to a bleak future when some politician on drugs concludes that the only way out to keep their lifestyle is sending the robots to kill people massively. To kill us Condoning unfair debt created thousands of years ago to alleviate pressure over ecosystems is out of the table, as usual.

slowhand09 7y ago

I think overpopulation is having/growing a population larger than you can support. I think this definition scales also. Don't have more kids than you can afford to feed and educate. This applies to families and to countries. Societies facilitate this thru cooperation. Regarding places like sub-Saharan Africa, the land was ravaged to the point of desertification where they cannot grow food. And disease ravages them in a way that they have 5 children hoping 1 or 2 will survive to adulthood. Perhaps large-scale change can turn the tide on the desertification, so they can feed their population. And so they can fight disease and survive.