6 ms·

>nobody today really argues for any of that stuff ahem https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/themes/population-policies https://www.un.org/development/desa/p

• lupire 6y ago
  Those pages promote birth control (with a focus on avoiding forced reproduction/birth) not culling the sick. Are you making a handwaving argument about supposed genocide via birth control?
  • oilbagz 6y ago
    If you want to reduce the size of a population, and you can pull strings at international scale (as is the case with the institutions I referenced), you have a few options in targetting that population: a) war/genocide b) famine/food crop failure c) birth control Which of these is the most palatable to the Western moral authority mindset, and most likely to gain popular support among the classes with the most democratic agency? You won't have feminists calling for outright war in order to de-populate your targetted society - you will have them supporting population-control if you couch the argument as 'women expressing agency over their bodies'. (note: I personally 100% agree that women should have full agency over their bodies - just like men should, too, be able to avoid going to war if they desire...) Plus, birth control means more sex, and everyone likes that - so you can easily get buy-in by your targetted population, too. At least, a little easier than the war option. The premise is the same for all cases: someone 'in authority' has decided that a population must be culled. The only thing that differs is the means by which this is achieved. It has already been demonstrated that the planet can actually support us all. We are suffering because we, as a species, cannot manage what we've got. We, as a species, are mis-managing things - we could be doing a lot, lot better. And unfortunately there are power structures out there which would rather not manage things, and instead just solve the problem by a)/b)/c), or all of the above. That will change - not by people demanding 'culling of other lesser populations', but by actually caring for other populations, and developing the technology and management structures required to support their lives ... Would you be outraged if China called for all Westerners to be sterilized in order to prevent population explosion? Are you outraged about the genocide of Yemen, because someone decided 'there are too many lower humans living there'? Or, have you decided 'your team' is more deserving of the future of humanity, somehow? Our real problem lies in the answers to those questions, not in the ability of the planet to support us all ..
• OrbitRock 6y ago
  Those are good things. We don’t want 12-14 billion humans. The biosphere is already under enormous stress. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11018 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11018
  • clarkmoody 6y ago
    Who is "we" and how do "we" get to decide how many humans there should be?
    • OrbitRock 6y ago
      No one is forcing anybody. It’s more just sharing things like birth control technology and education. This whole discussion is actually a sort of win-win scenario, because what proves to lower birth rates more effectively than anything is improved regional health, education, and wealth, so helping along those factors is the biggest impact. https://fs.blog/2016/04/hans-rosling-population-growth/ https://fs.blog/2016/04/hans-rosling-population-growth/
      • _iyig 6y ago
        China has forcibly implemented strict birth control policy for decades. They're also forcibly sterilizing ethnic minority populations, Uyghurs in particular: https://www.newyorker.com/news/a-reporter-at-large/china-xinjiang-prison-state-uighur-detention-camps-prisoner-testimony https://www.newyorker.com/news/a-reporter-at-large/china-xin...
        • ravi-delia 6y ago
          Ok yes, some people are forcing people. Clearly the person you responded to meant that they, and most people concerned about overpopulation, don't want to force anyone.
          • arduanika 6y ago
            No true Scotsman is forcing any other true Scotsman.