6 ms·
He accounted for life expectancy as a positive but didn't account for excess natality as a negative, by all means (except some emotional ones) 8 billion is a ri
by mattigames 3y ago
He accounted for life expectancy as a positive but didn't account for excess natality as a negative, by all means (except some emotional ones) 8 billion is a ridiculous amount of humans and direct cause of speeding up climate change among other damages to our own quality of life.
- vidarh 3y agoFertility rates are below replacement everywhere but sub-Saharan Africa, and dropping there too. The population growth curve is flattening out.
- mattigames 3y agoReplacement levels is still too high, we are way past any reasonable number.
- RankingMember 3y agoI feel like I'm taking crazy pills when people talk of any slowdown in human population growth in fearful terms.
- thefaux 3y agoThe problem is that the people with the strongest and least flexible religious views are precisely those who deny that they are religious.
- Matticus_Rex 3y agoNo, we're not.
- mattigames 3y agoYes we are, and it's a bit concerning how much people in this forum like overpopulation, our species literally already outnumbers rats.
- Matticus_Rex 3y agoAnd outnumbering rats is bad because...?
- vidarh 3y agoPersonally, I dislike rats enough that I'm very happy they don't outnumber us.
- mattigames 3y agoBecause we consider them a plague just be their sheer number (aka how easy they reproduce) If your species outnumber what your species consider a plague, there is a high chance that your species it's the bigger plague.
- vidarh 3y agoThat's a reason why we should be happy that we outnumber them, not a reason for why we should want there to be fewer of us. Nobody cares about the absolute number of rats. We care about the inconveniences they cause us.
- mattigames 3y agoThe inconveniences that our own population high count cause to ourselves includes things like global warming, which we all agree is a huge inconvenience, so even by your own definition we are a plague.
- vidarh 3y agoI have not provided any definition of "a plague", so no, we're not.
- mattigames 3y agoOh you are that kind of discusser, a good faith attempt at discussing would have included a definition for plague in your comment, if the heavily implied one that it must be a "damaging" was not the right one (or just not answer at all if don't want to bother keeping the discussion)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nonethewiser 3y agoWho should we stop from reproducing?
- byteware 3y ago10 races we should sterilize, number 6 will shock you, click here to learn more
- mattigames 3y agoThat your heads immediately go for "races" when talking about overpopulation says a lot about the emotional weight and biases you have and that you are not making a good faith attempt to discuss.
- henry2023 3y agoNot defending OP. But whenever we talk about overpopulation the conversation will automatically shift to limiting some races to have offspring. (Even you commented on incentivizing poor communities to not have children. Guess who is going to be disproportionally affected by this). I don't think that overpopulation is a problem today. Population collapse due to concentration of capital and power is.
- mattigames 3y ago...where do you think there are the highest suicide rates? In the rich neighborhoods? Which neighbors do you think the accumulation of capital and power is hurting the most and will continue to hurt? You are not damaging the comunities by paying them to have less children, unless you value life but not the lack of suffering by such lives. Our carbon footprint would be an eight fraction of what it is if there was only 1 billion people in the world, current state of climate change would still be decades away giving us a bit more time to gradually change course, and consentration of wealth and power would be less dramatic as the workforce will be more limited (supply and demand for money itself).
- RankingMember 3y ago