3 ms·
We don't need no people, we need fewer people. A lot of our problems would be less pronounced of we simply reduced their scale. https://www.worldpopulationbala
by theodric 6y ago
We don't need no people, we need fewer people. A lot of our problems would be less pronounced of we simply reduced their scale.
https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/ https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/
- sneak 6y agoThere is no consensus or scientific basis for the claim "we need fewer people". Pure opinions such as this should, IMO, come with an argument for holding such a view, especially when presented as a statement of fact.
- falcolas 6y agoAny attempts to create a consensus or scientific basis would, based on our current society's views towards science, only further to harden people's stance that science is wrong. Especially if it agreed with the principle that fewer people would be better for the environment. Which makes sense, logically. Fulfilling a human's basic needs involves world-wide supply chains filled with oil-guzzling vehicles. Fulfilling their entertainment needs requires even more of the same.
- hansvm 6y agoThey briefly explained their desire in the very next sentence. > A lot of our problems would be less pronounced of we simply reduced their scale. The statement "we need fewer people" might still not hold of course, but is their supporting argument controversial enough to need further elaboration?
- raarts 6y agoHuman population will peak around 2065, and drop off afterwards. This is the consequence of birth rates dropping (even in Africa) wherever people get our or poverty, and women can afford birth control. There is no need to be worried about overpopulation in the long run. If the trend continues we'll be extinct in a few thousand years. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/14/world/world-population-shrink-intl-scli-scn/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/14/world/world-population-sh...