5 ms·

I don't see anyone except for you advocating for that kind of neo-malthusianism. OP said we should eat less meat, travel less, and have fewer kids. Family plann

I don't see anyone except for you advocating for that kind of neo-malthusianism. OP said we should eat less meat, travel less, and have fewer kids. Family planning isn't the same thing as advocating for people to die.

vorpalhex 3y ago
We are already under the sustainment birth rate.
- empyrrhicist 3y ago
  Who is "we"? 1. While global population growth is slowing, population is still growing. 2. There are many real problems with population decline, but that's not an excuse to just throw your hands up and assume we need endless growth. Also, do you mean replacement rate? Sustainment birth rate is not a term in common usage. For the record, population growth is not my highest concern, especially since it decreases with improved quality of life anyway. I simply have no patience for lazily dismissing discussion of population growth as "eco-fascism" or whatever. The truth is that a lot of our existential risks would be easier to manage with smaller global population, especially if we care about that whole global population having access to good quality of life (which we should).
  - vorpalhex 3y ago
    > The truth is that a lot of our existential risks would be easier to manage with smaller global population This is why your detractors are calling you an eco-fascist. People are not cows. You have no right to manage us, or our birth rate, or change us to suit you. That you can even fathom such a sentance is itself suggestive of deficiency. If you want to change your life, please do. Attempting to force your preferences on others is unwise. > especially if we care about that whole global population having access to good quality of life You assume you know what makes my life good. What makes my life good is not the same thing that makes the lives of others good. The best advice I can give you is to travel and spend time with other people who are different from yourself. What you value, others may not. What they value, you may not.
    - empyrrhicist 3y ago
      How dare you. You don't know me, and you have not interacted with me sufficiently to possibly justify such inflammatory accusations. > People are not cows. You have no right to manage us, or our birth rate, or change us to suit you. I'm not. Implying I want to manage people like cows is clear bad-faith nonsense. The arguments of neomalthusians are not correct, because birth rates plateau in response to lots of external forces (like education, providing people access to family planning if they want it, and general quality of life) - with that said its stupid to pretend that we have the technology to sustain our current population levels with even the current distribution of lifestyles, let alone the opportunities we should be attempting to provide to all. One might call that lack of understanding "deficient". I believe in the agency of individual people - I am against coercive reproductive policies. I understand the problematic history of movements associated with population anxiety. None of that justifies your absurd accusations. > You assume you know what makes my life good I'm not the one making assumptions here. What would you say of native peoples whose land is being made unlivable by the climate crisis and loss of biodiversity? Would they be "eco-fascists" for wanting the industrial world to get its shit together? > The best advice I can give you is to travel and spend time with other people who are different from yourself. What you value, others may not. What they value, you may not. Again, how dare you. Your condescending inflexibility is truly unreal. To summarize - you think any discussion of human population equates to eco-fascism, regardless of context, motivation, or the ethical and scientific basis on which it is being discussed. Is all of macroeconomics fascist because it talks about the behavior of people in groups rather than recognizing all of our unique individuality? Is anatomy fascist because it studies our literal, physical, animal bodies? Is all regulation fascist because it constrains our individual freedom in favor of collective good? Even workplace safety regulations? Even pure food and drink regulations? Even regulations against environmental damage that affects future generations? If there's no room to talk about collective things at all, then your ideological bubble is small enough to suffocate you (or in this case, everyone).
      - vorpalhex 3y ago
        No, I simply believe that you attempting to exert control over the birth rates of people you don't know is an ethical no go, regardless whatever "scientific" basis you think you have. > The arguments of neomalthusians are not correct, because birth rates plateau in response to lots of external forces And attempting to engineer those things to an end of changing birth rates is starkly dangerous territory, nor will a pattern always hold. Not all cultures have less kids upon becoming more educated. > What would you say of native peoples whose land is being made unlivable by the climate crisis and loss of biodiversity? There was a young woman attempting to collect signatures to "stop burning the rainforest". I asked her if she understood that those burns came from people who lived there, often the poor, who were attempting to farm. She doubled down that it was wrong. So I asked what she would have them do instead. Would she be willing to give them different land? A different place to live? It's easy to make "other" people sacrifice at no cost to yourself. When you have to directly compensate them, suddenly people change their tune. "Collective good", "save the children" and so on are red herrings. Of course we want the commons to be well treated and the children safe, but how often is that action actually achieving that? How much more often is it merely control by a minority?

vorpalhex 3y ago

We are already under the sustainment birth rate.

empyrrhicist 3y ago
Who is "we"? 1. While global population growth is slowing, population is still growing. 2. There are many real problems with population decline, but that's not an excuse to just throw your hands up and assume we need endless growth. Also, do you mean replacement rate? Sustainment birth rate is not a term in common usage. For the record, population growth is not my highest concern, especially since it decreases with improved quality of life anyway. I simply have no patience for lazily dismissing discussion of population growth as "eco-fascism" or whatever. The truth is that a lot of our existential risks would be easier to manage with smaller global population, especially if we care about that whole global population having access to good quality of life (which we should).
- vorpalhex 3y ago
  > The truth is that a lot of our existential risks would be easier to manage with smaller global population This is why your detractors are calling you an eco-fascist. People are not cows. You have no right to manage us, or our birth rate, or change us to suit you. That you can even fathom such a sentance is itself suggestive of deficiency. If you want to change your life, please do. Attempting to force your preferences on others is unwise. > especially if we care about that whole global population having access to good quality of life You assume you know what makes my life good. What makes my life good is not the same thing that makes the lives of others good. The best advice I can give you is to travel and spend time with other people who are different from yourself. What you value, others may not. What they value, you may not.
  - empyrrhicist 3y ago
    How dare you. You don't know me, and you have not interacted with me sufficiently to possibly justify such inflammatory accusations. > People are not cows. You have no right to manage us, or our birth rate, or change us to suit you. I'm not. Implying I want to manage people like cows is clear bad-faith nonsense. The arguments of neomalthusians are not correct, because birth rates plateau in response to lots of external forces (like education, providing people access to family planning if they want it, and general quality of life) - with that said its stupid to pretend that we have the technology to sustain our current population levels with even the current distribution of lifestyles, let alone the opportunities we should be attempting to provide to all. One might call that lack of understanding "deficient". I believe in the agency of individual people - I am against coercive reproductive policies. I understand the problematic history of movements associated with population anxiety. None of that justifies your absurd accusations. > You assume you know what makes my life good I'm not the one making assumptions here. What would you say of native peoples whose land is being made unlivable by the climate crisis and loss of biodiversity? Would they be "eco-fascists" for wanting the industrial world to get its shit together? > The best advice I can give you is to travel and spend time with other people who are different from yourself. What you value, others may not. What they value, you may not. Again, how dare you. Your condescending inflexibility is truly unreal. To summarize - you think any discussion of human population equates to eco-fascism, regardless of context, motivation, or the ethical and scientific basis on which it is being discussed. Is all of macroeconomics fascist because it talks about the behavior of people in groups rather than recognizing all of our unique individuality? Is anatomy fascist because it studies our literal, physical, animal bodies? Is all regulation fascist because it constrains our individual freedom in favor of collective good? Even workplace safety regulations? Even pure food and drink regulations? Even regulations against environmental damage that affects future generations? If there's no room to talk about collective things at all, then your ideological bubble is small enough to suffocate you (or in this case, everyone).
    - vorpalhex 3y ago
      No, I simply believe that you attempting to exert control over the birth rates of people you don't know is an ethical no go, regardless whatever "scientific" basis you think you have. > The arguments of neomalthusians are not correct, because birth rates plateau in response to lots of external forces And attempting to engineer those things to an end of changing birth rates is starkly dangerous territory, nor will a pattern always hold. Not all cultures have less kids upon becoming more educated. > What would you say of native peoples whose land is being made unlivable by the climate crisis and loss of biodiversity? There was a young woman attempting to collect signatures to "stop burning the rainforest". I asked her if she understood that those burns came from people who lived there, often the poor, who were attempting to farm. She doubled down that it was wrong. So I asked what she would have them do instead. Would she be willing to give them different land? A different place to live? It's easy to make "other" people sacrifice at no cost to yourself. When you have to directly compensate them, suddenly people change their tune. "Collective good", "save the children" and so on are red herrings. Of course we want the commons to be well treated and the children safe, but how often is that action actually achieving that? How much more often is it merely control by a minority?