3 ms·
The main objection to this kind of arguments is that the earth is enough for everyone but the problem is that the wealth is not distributed. Thus this kind of a
by licebmi__at__ 4y ago
The main objection to this kind of arguments is that the earth is enough for everyone but the problem is that the wealth is not distributed. Thus this kind of argument is viewed as a way for wealthy nations to deflect blame.
And while I personally don’t share the more optimistic side of the argument, I’m definitely sympathetic to the second part, specially when I see the moralistic arguments against poor nations trying to create wealth, by those who already depleted their own, and are also mostly enjoying the fruits of poor nations resources in form of cheap goods.
- car_analogy 4y ago> Thus this kind of argument is viewed as a way for wealthy nations to deflect blame. But it's the wealthy nations that are the ones undergoing population decline. And instead of being praised for their responsible family planning, they are told "No! You must grow! And by 'grow' we mean import people from abroad."
- licebmi__at__ 4y agoI don’t think the people who are defending a maltussian like argument (which is the one I’m criticizing) are the ones also arguing for more population on the first world.