8 ms·

> We just need to let the land do its thing and literally do nothing to much of the world. We need to do a very simple thing to most of the world: leave. Regi

by qayxc 5y ago

> We just need to let the land do its thing and literally do nothing to much of the world. We need to do a very simple thing to most of the world: leave. Regions that supported <10k people in the past are now populated by millions. Next thing they wonder why their agricultural practices and water use has become unsustainable and the land becomes unfit for human habitation... A massive reduction in population growth helps more than doing nothing. That, however, to many people is unacceptable for religious and ideological reasons.

weregiraffe 5y ago
>A massive reduction in population growth helps more than doing nothing. I always suggest an author of such proposals to start by reducing themselves from the population.
- beebeepka 5y ago
  Why? The person did not propose culling or anything. What they said is true: human population is the main problem.
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
    No, the Earth could easily sustain billions more if they had the same carbon footprint as Africans or Vietnamese (or many dozens other countries). Not all human beings have an unsustainable way of life so maybe we should stop considering population as being the problem but which part of the population is responsible for the problem. Just like we don't accuse "human population" for murder but those who are actually murdering. I bet all those who blame the population are among the few with the worst environmental footprint...
    - oblak 5y ago
      You're right in the sense that a modern chicken farm supports untold amount of chickens without collapsing. Yes, it's possible, and quite doable, but the chickens have absolutely horrible lives, taste bad, and their eggs are disgusting. Is that what we want as a species? An overpopulated planet? It can always support a bit more if just try harder, right? I sure don't want that for myself. I am unable to honestly judge my own environmental footprint because I lack a ton of information. That said, I don't even have a car and have been living well below my means for quite a while. Don't even consume meat. Do I win anything, since it is a competition?
      - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        UK has one of the highest population destities in the world: "all the buildings in the UK - houses, shops, offices, factories, greenhouses - cover 1.4% of the total land surface." This is not a chicken farm untill we have 100 billion people, which we never will. We are like illiterate medieval peasants who trow shit on the street and in the river and they wonder why they get the plague. Must be overpopulation.
        oblak 5y ago
        Nice try. UK is 52. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen... You're right about people being inconsiderate fucks but somehow forget that having a lot of human monkeys in one place sucks ass. Civilized or not, everyone has to eat, drink and shit. Oh, yes
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Well, they did write: > We need to do a very simple thing to most of the world: leave.
    - oblak 5y ago
      Does having "we" in there mean anything to you?
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        That by using first-person-plural that they’re volunteering to be part of the solution?
        qayxc 5y ago
        Don't over-interpret. By "leave" I mean the literal "leaving", e.g. not staying in places that are unfit for human habitation. Why do we need to have unsustainable permanent settlements in the Arctic? Why are there multi-million cities in the middle of the desert? Interpreting the term "leaving" as anything else than "moving away from a place" say more about the thought process of the person interpreting it that way than about the one making the suggestion ;)
- pgeorgi 5y ago
  Next best measure and much more easily advocated for: not have kids.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- qayxc 5y ago
  > I always suggest an author of such proposals to start by reducing themselves from the population. I always suggest to people who associate a "reduction in population growth" with genocide to check their own attitude towards the value of human life. If you are unable to see the difference between having 10 starving children and having one well-fed child that can go to school and thrive in a liveable environment, I would have trouble respecting you as a person.
nonethewiser 5y ago
Actually, leaving cities would make a bigger difference. All the little towns of a few thousand people arent causing problems. It's the centralized , systematic destruction causing issues.
- jefftk 5y ago
  That sounds backwards? A million people in a city have much lower environmental impacts than spread widely across otherwise wild land?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
8note 5y ago
Alternatively, we could get the rich people poor again, since it's a small part of the giant population that's causing all the problems.
- qayxc 5y ago
  What makes you think that? The population growth in Sahel area ranges from 130% to 230% in the next two decades [0]. This is an area that historically only supported a fraction of its current inhabitants. Continued exponential growth will bring the already overstressed ecological and economical environment to its total collapse. These are not rich people. These are the poorest of the poor and they will destroy the last bits of forest, arable land and ground water reserves in the region just to survive. Ecological collapse doesn't start and end with CO2 emissions and taking joy rides into space after all. Continued uncontrolled exponential population growth in regions that simply don't support that many people is a problem. [0] https://ideas4development.org/en/population-growth-sahel-challenge-generation/ https://ideas4development.org/en/population-growth-sahel-cha...
dragonwriter 5y ago
> A massive reduction in population growth helps more than doing nothing. That, however, to many people is unacceptable for religious and ideological reasons. The entire concept of “need” and what is “helpful” is ideological, so you are simply stating your anti-human ideology and shock that other humans have a pro-human ideology. And if you continue inflicting yourself on the world, it's a hypocritical anti-human stance, as well.
- qayxc 5y ago
  > The entire concept of “need” and what is “helpful” is ideological How so? Is it objectively good to have a dozen children in an economical, political and ecological environment that would lead to most of them starving, getting ill, becoming child soldiers, and staying poor and uneducated with no prospects for a bright future? > so you are simply stating your anti-human ideology and shock that other humans have a pro-human ideology No, I'm just exposing the anti-human nature of "be fruitful and multiply" at the behest of religious doctrine that doesn't care about the consequences. Whenever "reducing population growth" is equated with destruction of human life, the person associating the two exposes themselves as an actual monster. How on earth is "not having 10 starving, uneducated, sick children with a future of continued existence in poverty" anti-human? Can you explain that to me? I'm advocating for people in the Sahel to have only one or two children that they can actually feed and send to school and who may eventually find a job and make a decent living as opposed to ending up in the same miserable conditions they parents find themselves in. Unsustainable population growth is a major problem [0] [1] [2] and if your little world reduces the planet to your local neighbourhood and "pro-life" activism at your local church, then we might just have different perspectives on life. Why it is so hard for some actual ideologists to just look at facts and simply accept the economical, ecological and political effects that uncontrolled population growth can have; it's truly beyond me. What really grinds my gears, however, is how some folks can sincerely equate suggesting solutions for improving the live of billions of people with being "anti-human", while it's their religious doctrine that's causes the continued suffering of generations to come. I'd rather see a Bangladeshi family of three with a child that has access to healthcare, education, healthy environment and a stable economic future than parents who struggle to even feed and clothe their 5 children in their 25 m² makeshift hut without sanitation in the slums of Dhaka... But sure, it's ME who's the anti-human hypocrite. [0] https://ideas4development.org/en/population-growth-sahel-challenge-generation/ https://ideas4development.org/en/population-growth-sahel-cha... [1] https://www.britannica.com/place/South-America/Effects-of-rapid-population-increase https://www.britannica.com/place/South-America/Effects-of-ra... [2] https://bankofinfo.com/population-growth-in-bangladesh/ https://bankofinfo.com/population-growth-in-bangladesh/

by qayxc 5y ago

weregiraffe 5y ago

>A massive reduction in population growth helps more than doing nothing. I always suggest an author of such proposals to start by reducing themselves from the population.

beebeepka 5y ago
Why? The person did not propose culling or anything. What they said is true: human population is the main problem.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
  No, the Earth could easily sustain billions more if they had the same carbon footprint as Africans or Vietnamese (or many dozens other countries). Not all human beings have an unsustainable way of life so maybe we should stop considering population as being the problem but which part of the population is responsible for the problem. Just like we don't accuse "human population" for murder but those who are actually murdering. I bet all those who blame the population are among the few with the worst environmental footprint...
  - oblak 5y ago
    You're right in the sense that a modern chicken farm supports untold amount of chickens without collapsing. Yes, it's possible, and quite doable, but the chickens have absolutely horrible lives, taste bad, and their eggs are disgusting. Is that what we want as a species? An overpopulated planet? It can always support a bit more if just try harder, right? I sure don't want that for myself. I am unable to honestly judge my own environmental footprint because I lack a ton of information. That said, I don't even have a car and have been living well below my means for quite a while. Don't even consume meat. Do I win anything, since it is a competition?
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      UK has one of the highest population destities in the world: "all the buildings in the UK - houses, shops, offices, factories, greenhouses - cover 1.4% of the total land surface." This is not a chicken farm untill we have 100 billion people, which we never will. We are like illiterate medieval peasants who trow shit on the street and in the river and they wonder why they get the plague. Must be overpopulation.
      - oblak 5y ago
        Nice try. UK is 52. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen... You're right about people being inconsiderate fucks but somehow forget that having a lot of human monkeys in one place sucks ass. Civilized or not, everyone has to eat, drink and shit. Oh, yes
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Well, they did write: > We need to do a very simple thing to most of the world: leave.
  - oblak 5y ago
    Does having "we" in there mean anything to you?
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      That by using first-person-plural that they’re volunteering to be part of the solution?
      - qayxc 5y ago
        Don't over-interpret. By "leave" I mean the literal "leaving", e.g. not staying in places that are unfit for human habitation. Why do we need to have unsustainable permanent settlements in the Arctic? Why are there multi-million cities in the middle of the desert? Interpreting the term "leaving" as anything else than "moving away from a place" say more about the thought process of the person interpreting it that way than about the one making the suggestion ;)
pgeorgi 5y ago
Next best measure and much more easily advocated for: not have kids.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
qayxc 5y ago
> I always suggest an author of such proposals to start by reducing themselves from the population. I always suggest to people who associate a "reduction in population growth" with genocide to check their own attitude towards the value of human life. If you are unable to see the difference between having 10 starving children and having one well-fed child that can go to school and thrive in a liveable environment, I would have trouble respecting you as a person.

nonethewiser 5y ago

Actually, leaving cities would make a bigger difference. All the little towns of a few thousand people arent causing problems. It's the centralized , systematic destruction causing issues.

jefftk 5y ago
That sounds backwards? A million people in a city have much lower environmental impacts than spread widely across otherwise wild land?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

8note 5y ago

Alternatively, we could get the rich people poor again, since it's a small part of the giant population that's causing all the problems.

qayxc 5y ago
What makes you think that? The population growth in Sahel area ranges from 130% to 230% in the next two decades [0]. This is an area that historically only supported a fraction of its current inhabitants. Continued exponential growth will bring the already overstressed ecological and economical environment to its total collapse. These are not rich people. These are the poorest of the poor and they will destroy the last bits of forest, arable land and ground water reserves in the region just to survive. Ecological collapse doesn't start and end with CO2 emissions and taking joy rides into space after all. Continued uncontrolled exponential population growth in regions that simply don't support that many people is a problem. [0] https://ideas4development.org/en/population-growth-sahel-challenge-generation/ https://ideas4development.org/en/population-growth-sahel-cha...

dragonwriter 5y ago

> A massive reduction in population growth helps more than doing nothing. That, however, to many people is unacceptable for religious and ideological reasons. The entire concept of “need” and what is “helpful” is ideological, so you are simply stating your anti-human ideology and shock that other humans have a pro-human ideology. And if you continue inflicting yourself on the world, it's a hypocritical anti-human stance, as well.

qayxc 5y ago
> The entire concept of “need” and what is “helpful” is ideological How so? Is it objectively good to have a dozen children in an economical, political and ecological environment that would lead to most of them starving, getting ill, becoming child soldiers, and staying poor and uneducated with no prospects for a bright future? > so you are simply stating your anti-human ideology and shock that other humans have a pro-human ideology No, I'm just exposing the anti-human nature of "be fruitful and multiply" at the behest of religious doctrine that doesn't care about the consequences. Whenever "reducing population growth" is equated with destruction of human life, the person associating the two exposes themselves as an actual monster. How on earth is "not having 10 starving, uneducated, sick children with a future of continued existence in poverty" anti-human? Can you explain that to me? I'm advocating for people in the Sahel to have only one or two children that they can actually feed and send to school and who may eventually find a job and make a decent living as opposed to ending up in the same miserable conditions they parents find themselves in. Unsustainable population growth is a major problem [0] [1] [2] and if your little world reduces the planet to your local neighbourhood and "pro-life" activism at your local church, then we might just have different perspectives on life. Why it is so hard for some actual ideologists to just look at facts and simply accept the economical, ecological and political effects that uncontrolled population growth can have; it's truly beyond me. What really grinds my gears, however, is how some folks can sincerely equate suggesting solutions for improving the live of billions of people with being "anti-human", while it's their religious doctrine that's causes the continued suffering of generations to come. I'd rather see a Bangladeshi family of three with a child that has access to healthcare, education, healthy environment and a stable economic future than parents who struggle to even feed and clothe their 5 children in their 25 m² makeshift hut without sanitation in the slums of Dhaka... But sure, it's ME who's the anti-human hypocrite. [0] https://ideas4development.org/en/population-growth-sahel-challenge-generation/ https://ideas4development.org/en/population-growth-sahel-cha... [1] https://www.britannica.com/place/South-America/Effects-of-rapid-population-increase https://www.britannica.com/place/South-America/Effects-of-ra... [2] https://bankofinfo.com/population-growth-in-bangladesh/ https://bankofinfo.com/population-growth-in-bangladesh/