4 ms·

The problem is more nuanced than that and just throwing out "Population control." is completely meaningless. You could cull three billion people of the lowest

The problem is more nuanced than that and just throwing out "Population control." is completely meaningless. You could cull three billion people of the lowest emitters and it would have as much of an effect as halving the CO2 emissions of the top 1% of emitters.[1] And considering that to avoid the worst of the climate crisis we need action immediately or as close to it as possible, waiting for people to die away will not help us. If the entire planet stopped having babies today we would wait 65 years to get to half the current population, and half the emissions. At best, and I would argue even that is a stretch, population control is one small part of a long term strategy. But it is by no means a solution, so throwing it out there every time people talk about sustainability does nothing but derail the conversation. What we really need is to to make consumption as sustainable as possible and reduce it where possible, especially for the top consumers. That is not only more feasible in the short term, it is probably more ethical as well. (Pasted this comment from [2]) [1] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-ric... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29545504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29545504

betwixthewires 4y ago
It's not feasible, because our population is only currently possible due to the availability of energy. We can't have global supply chains, food and medicine moving across the world, much less being produced, without oil and gas. You simply don't reduce energy consumption beyond making TV illegal without starving more than half of the people alive today. It is by no means a solution, that's kind of my point. There is no solution. We are made of the stuff that is causing this. Something like 68% of the bioavailable nitrogen in your body was produced via the Haber Bosch process. Most of the carbon in your body was produced as a result of fossil fuel extraction. I didn't use the phrase "population control" because it's disingenuous. What I'm talking about is culling. No matter how you dice it, reducing energy availability, paving vast parts of the world to make up for what little energy we truly need, you're talking about killing billions of people and destroying a significant portion of the living surface of the earth. These are not options. And even if they were, the environmental destruction would be worse, it wouldn't even solve anything. It doesn't derail the conversation, it is the conversation. I'm not arguing for population control, I think the idea is disgusting. I'm pointing out simply that all these pretty ideas people keep talking about, when you look at the magnitude of the problem, they're not viable solutions. If they're not viable then a conversation talking about them should be derailed because it isn't the conversation we should be having.
- abvdasker 4y ago
  Ecofascism is a pretty unimaginative, lazy and downright illogical solution to the complicated problem of climate change. It's also morally and scientifically wrong.
  - betwixthewires 4y ago
    I wholeheartedly agree. What's your point?

betwixthewires 4y ago

It's not feasible, because our population is only currently possible due to the availability of energy. We can't have global supply chains, food and medicine moving across the world, much less being produced, without oil and gas. You simply don't reduce energy consumption beyond making TV illegal without starving more than half of the people alive today. It is by no means a solution, that's kind of my point. There is no solution. We are made of the stuff that is causing this. Something like 68% of the bioavailable nitrogen in your body was produced via the Haber Bosch process. Most of the carbon in your body was produced as a result of fossil fuel extraction. I didn't use the phrase "population control" because it's disingenuous. What I'm talking about is culling. No matter how you dice it, reducing energy availability, paving vast parts of the world to make up for what little energy we truly need, you're talking about killing billions of people and destroying a significant portion of the living surface of the earth. These are not options. And even if they were, the environmental destruction would be worse, it wouldn't even solve anything. It doesn't derail the conversation, it is the conversation. I'm not arguing for population control, I think the idea is disgusting. I'm pointing out simply that all these pretty ideas people keep talking about, when you look at the magnitude of the problem, they're not viable solutions. If they're not viable then a conversation talking about them should be derailed because it isn't the conversation we should be having.

abvdasker 4y ago
Ecofascism is a pretty unimaginative, lazy and downright illogical solution to the complicated problem of climate change. It's also morally and scientifically wrong.
- betwixthewires 4y ago
  I wholeheartedly agree. What's your point?