4 ms·
The article is not arguing that the Earth should support 1 trillion people or some equally unsustainable numbers. This is not the point. The point is the raci
by eeZah7Ux 6y ago
The article is not arguing that the Earth should support 1 trillion people or some equally unsustainable numbers.
This is not the point.
The point is the racist and genocidal undertones expressed by malthus and repeated even nowadays: "wealthy countries can thrive and use a lot of resources while people in the global south can starve and die of disease to reduce population"
EDIT: why all the downvotes, huh?
- inglor_cz 6y agoI downvoted you because you used racism and genocide as a thought-stopping cliché. There is no reason to ignore that countries like Niger will inevitably run into even more problems if they continue reproducing according to contemporary UN models. The projections go to 70 million people for Niger in 2050, and they have actually slightly underestimated African population growth in the past. Feeding 70 million people in a mostly desert country with no industry to speak of is a real issue and it should not be ignored just because America has developed an allergy on anything that might be construed as racism.