3 ms·

> 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 massiv

> 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]

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]