5 ms·

>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

>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.

>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.