4 ms·

The earth is already beyond the sustainable carrying capacity of humans. We have exterminated thousands of species and that's mostly without the effect of clima

The earth is already beyond the sustainable carrying capacity of humans. We have exterminated thousands of species and that's mostly without the effect of climate change. And that's just now, not even if we had everyone on earth with the living standards of an Australian or German or American. Australia is already "big Australia", Australia's record on habitat and species destruction is horrific. It just astounds me that people would think doubling the population of western countries (or any country) would be a good idea. I don't buy the "eugenics" equivalence, any more than you can connect any sort of policy or technology to genocide if you tried hard enough. By advocating for massive populations you are implicitly advocating for tiered class system of haves and have-nots in my opinion.

inopinatus 5y ago
No-one is advocating for "massive populations", so you're pretty much throwing shade on a straw man. Anyone suggesting that Australia, for example, could handle more people, is still thinking in terms of economic, social, and environmental stability. On the contrary, though, advocating for population reduction is inherently classist, since this requires government management, and ruling classes will inevitably protect their own ranks first. The result of such modes of thinking is not academic. The UK's prime minister, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, is not the hapless buffoon he plays on camera, and his COVID management policy disproportionately kills the poor by a factor of 3.7[1]. Inequity of survival is the actual consequence of any managed population reduction. [1] https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/charts-and-infographics/what-geographic-inequalities-in-covid-19-mortality-rates-can-tell-us-about-levelling-up https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/charts-and-infogr...
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > No-one is advocating for "massive populations", so you're pretty much throwing shade on a straw man. Many people are. Our current global population is massive. Humans and their livestock account for 96% of all mammal biomass on earth and we're rapidly exterminating the remaining 4%. And people want it to grow significantly, e.g., the person I just replied to. > On the contrary, advocating for population reduction is inherently classist, since this requires government management, and ruling classes will inevitably protect their own ranks first. No it doesn't, that's just false. The most highly consuming countries on earth have naturally stable or declining populations. And making arguments about the ruling class protecting their own ranks or deploying authoritarian government control over others doesn't really make sense because they do that now, they'll do that when populations are growing, they'll do that when populations are shrinking. You can't have that as your argument.
  - inopinatus 5y ago
    No doubt that when repeated in whatever echo chamber they come from, those arguments attract nothing but approval. However, since they're quite clearly a load of intentional misrepresentation and false equivalences, they don't wash with a critical outside observer. > You can't have that as your argument Excuse me, no, as with the previous misrepresentation of countervailing positions, once again you don't get to decide what someone else's argument is. This coercive attitude is consistent, but it doesn't hold any water. There's no proposal to eliminate governments and ruling classes, so ignoring the realities is facile. The outcome of a downward trajectory is literally killing people, and this is not OK.
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      > However, since they're quite clearly a load of intentional misrepresentation and false equivalences, they don't wash with a critical outside observer. You haven't been able to refute them though. I noticed you quietly ignored my first refutation. > Excuse me, no, as with the previous misrepresentation of countervailing positions, once again you don't get to decide what someone else's argument is. This coercive attitude is consistent, but it doesn't hold any water. Spare the theatrics. If there was any logic or evidence put forward to argue that sustainable populations would result in more classist oppression or disparity, then fine. But just stating that as though it supports your position doesn't work. It's a non sequitur even if we ignore that you claimed it was inherently classist "since it requires government management" (which is false). > There's no proposal to eliminate governments and ruling classes, so ignoring the realities is facile. The outcome of a downward trajectory is literally killing people, Wrong
      - inopinatus 5y ago
        [flagged]
        throwawaylinux 5y ago
        [flagged]
- ggm 5y ago
  Since he depends on unemployed working-class poor people to keep wages down and secure a high rate of profit, This is a rather odd model. I guess he'd rather import bodies, than grow them.
- shapefrog 5y ago
  > On the contrary, though, advocating for population reduction is inherently classist, since this requires government management, and ruling classes will inevitably protect their own ranks first. If I can make the choice to recycle, eat less cows, cycle instead of walking; why can't I make the choice to have 2 children instead of 5. Or even have 1.

inopinatus 5y ago

No-one is advocating for "massive populations", so you're pretty much throwing shade on a straw man. Anyone suggesting that Australia, for example, could handle more people, is still thinking in terms of economic, social, and environmental stability. On the contrary, though, advocating for population reduction is inherently classist, since this requires government management, and ruling classes will inevitably protect their own ranks first. The result of such modes of thinking is not academic. The UK's prime minister, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, is not the hapless buffoon he plays on camera, and his COVID management policy disproportionately kills the poor by a factor of 3.7[1]. Inequity of survival is the actual consequence of any managed population reduction. [1] https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/charts-and-infographics/what-geographic-inequalities-in-covid-19-mortality-rates-can-tell-us-about-levelling-up https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/charts-and-infogr...

throwawaylinux 5y ago
> No-one is advocating for "massive populations", so you're pretty much throwing shade on a straw man. Many people are. Our current global population is massive. Humans and their livestock account for 96% of all mammal biomass on earth and we're rapidly exterminating the remaining 4%. And people want it to grow significantly, e.g., the person I just replied to. > On the contrary, advocating for population reduction is inherently classist, since this requires government management, and ruling classes will inevitably protect their own ranks first. No it doesn't, that's just false. The most highly consuming countries on earth have naturally stable or declining populations. And making arguments about the ruling class protecting their own ranks or deploying authoritarian government control over others doesn't really make sense because they do that now, they'll do that when populations are growing, they'll do that when populations are shrinking. You can't have that as your argument.
- inopinatus 5y ago
  No doubt that when repeated in whatever echo chamber they come from, those arguments attract nothing but approval. However, since they're quite clearly a load of intentional misrepresentation and false equivalences, they don't wash with a critical outside observer. > You can't have that as your argument Excuse me, no, as with the previous misrepresentation of countervailing positions, once again you don't get to decide what someone else's argument is. This coercive attitude is consistent, but it doesn't hold any water. There's no proposal to eliminate governments and ruling classes, so ignoring the realities is facile. The outcome of a downward trajectory is literally killing people, and this is not OK.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    > However, since they're quite clearly a load of intentional misrepresentation and false equivalences, they don't wash with a critical outside observer. You haven't been able to refute them though. I noticed you quietly ignored my first refutation. > Excuse me, no, as with the previous misrepresentation of countervailing positions, once again you don't get to decide what someone else's argument is. This coercive attitude is consistent, but it doesn't hold any water. Spare the theatrics. If there was any logic or evidence put forward to argue that sustainable populations would result in more classist oppression or disparity, then fine. But just stating that as though it supports your position doesn't work. It's a non sequitur even if we ignore that you claimed it was inherently classist "since it requires government management" (which is false). > There's no proposal to eliminate governments and ruling classes, so ignoring the realities is facile. The outcome of a downward trajectory is literally killing people, Wrong
    - inopinatus 5y ago
      [flagged]
      - throwawaylinux 5y ago
        [flagged]
ggm 5y ago
Since he depends on unemployed working-class poor people to keep wages down and secure a high rate of profit, This is a rather odd model. I guess he'd rather import bodies, than grow them.
shapefrog 5y ago
> On the contrary, though, advocating for population reduction is inherently classist, since this requires government management, and ruling classes will inevitably protect their own ranks first. If I can make the choice to recycle, eat less cows, cycle instead of walking; why can't I make the choice to have 2 children instead of 5. Or even have 1.