3 ms·

This idea that we should depopulate is the terrifying perspective. People have been crying that the sky is falling since Malthus, and they've always been wrong.

This idea that we should depopulate is the terrifying perspective. People have been crying that the sky is falling since Malthus, and they've always been wrong. There is no "saving the planet as we know it now". The planet is ever-changing, and has never been static. There are certainly dangers to the path we're on that we have to mitigate, but depopulation is not one of the solutions.

zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
You can encourage lower reproduction with tax incentives. Nothing wrong with that.
- naasking 3y ago
  We don't need to encourage it, birth control and capitalism have already produced a depopulation trend in all developed countries. It's not a good thing.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    It's not a good thing because???? I'll accept a well reasoned argument, but you've not presented any yet in this discussion and engaged in your own naturalistic fallacies. If you're using the reason that "Wanting to breed is natural" then surmise that you've never been involved in animal husbandry before. Nor have you studied mammal populations between species, especially those that have boom and bust cycles.
    - naasking 3y ago
      The article outlines plenty of good reasons, that's why we're discussing it. Most depopulation scenarios are nightmares (wars, famines, genocides), and even the good ones are very, very unpleasant (disproportionate resources must be directed towards caring for the aging population, leaving little labour for maintenance of existing infrastructure, let alone development).
menacingly 3y ago
depop is fine as long as we start with the depops
0xfaded 3y ago
This argument is equating human perspectives of the world to physical realities. Ancient populations certainly left their mask, Romans deforested Europe for the sake of glass making. But that is nothing compared to the resource extraction and ndustrial waste that support the world 9 billion people. Willing it away with "the sky has always been falling" is denialism at best.
- naasking 3y ago
  I acknowledged the real dangers like climate change in my original post. I simply don't agree that the other issues you mention are actual dangers. Your argument that these are problems is a naturalistic fallacy.
anemoiac 3y ago
It seems like you didn’t finish your response… Why is depopulation terrifying? And why shouldn’t we be concerned about resource constraints? Malthus being wrong implies nothing about the future.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Depopolating is just another word for genocid, that's why it is terrifying. Or at least should br, but then some people are just too edgy to get that.
  - naasking 3y ago
    Or it's a cute term for oppressing people to a degree that they don't want to follow natural instincts to procreate. For instance, developed nations economically penalize parenthood to such an extent that native birth rate is now below replacement in all of them with only a few exceptions.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      That birth rates go down withe conomic prosperity has nothing to do with government oppression... That talking point is utter BS, and close to the conspiracy theory of the great "replacement" ...
      - naasking 3y ago
        Who said anything about government oppression?
    - aranelsurion 3y ago
      This seems to me only partially true. Sure if everyone had one-percenter level resources they'd be more inclined to procreate, though the cultural change and the shifted focus to individualism and one's own experience in life (YOLO thinking, if I may) probably has as much or even more effect on it. As an anecdata, most people I know are somewhere on the low-class to upper-mid class, and the ones who want kids seem to always have at least one, consequences be damned, and the ones who don't, often don't put a price tag on it and merely use it as an excuse if they feel pressured. Also the `natural instinct` may not be a given here, since up until recently the instinct to have sex and procreate meant the same results for humans just like other animals, which no longer holds true either.
chaostheory 3y ago
It’s not terrifying because it has been happening since the 1950s. One theory is that as countries industrialize, their males become less fertile over subsequent generations. (This theory accounts for socioeconomic changes like abortion and being too poor to afford children.) It’s not too surprising given chemicals like BPA aka synthetic estrogen is so pervasive that now it’s in clothes and paper receipts. Almost no country is safe except for a few in central Africa https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/11/25/world-population-increase-peak-chart-age-gender/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/11/25/world-popu... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/22/ageing-planet-the-new-demographic-timebomb https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/22/ageing-planet-...
- hef19898 3y ago
  How can one look at those numbers, and take, after mixing it other issues like birth control, such a deeply wrong conclusion?
  - chaostheory 3y ago
    They account for socioeconomic changes like abortion and birth control ie these trends started long before the sexual revolution and long before abortion was even legal. It is not a “deeply wrong conclusion” unless no one bother to read any of it. Completely ignoring the endocrine disrupter pollution just shows you completely ignored my comment. The key is declining male fertility https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230327-how-pollution-is-causing-a-male-fertility-crisis https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230327-how-pollution-is...
    - hef19898 3y ago
      I know, declining male fertility is such a nice talking point, you know men being less manly and all that. Funny so, that while micro plastics and whatnot sure are ugly and cannot be ignored, all other studies do not mention male fertility as a root cause, but rather: - urbanization and changes in lifestyle - women pursuing a life other than being a mother - birth control (the reason why birth control reduces the number of kids per couple should be obvious...) - economic incentives change from large families (old style, labour intensive farming) to smaller families (industrial labour and office work in cities) - Covid source: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/birthrates-declining-globally-why-matters/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/birthrates-declining-...

zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago

You can encourage lower reproduction with tax incentives. Nothing wrong with that.

naasking 3y ago
We don't need to encourage it, birth control and capitalism have already produced a depopulation trend in all developed countries. It's not a good thing.
- pixl97 3y ago
  It's not a good thing because???? I'll accept a well reasoned argument, but you've not presented any yet in this discussion and engaged in your own naturalistic fallacies. If you're using the reason that "Wanting to breed is natural" then surmise that you've never been involved in animal husbandry before. Nor have you studied mammal populations between species, especially those that have boom and bust cycles.
  - naasking 3y ago
    The article outlines plenty of good reasons, that's why we're discussing it. Most depopulation scenarios are nightmares (wars, famines, genocides), and even the good ones are very, very unpleasant (disproportionate resources must be directed towards caring for the aging population, leaving little labour for maintenance of existing infrastructure, let alone development).

menacingly 3y ago

depop is fine as long as we start with the depops

0xfaded 3y ago

This argument is equating human perspectives of the world to physical realities. Ancient populations certainly left their mask, Romans deforested Europe for the sake of glass making. But that is nothing compared to the resource extraction and ndustrial waste that support the world 9 billion people. Willing it away with "the sky has always been falling" is denialism at best.

naasking 3y ago
I acknowledged the real dangers like climate change in my original post. I simply don't agree that the other issues you mention are actual dangers. Your argument that these are problems is a naturalistic fallacy.

anemoiac 3y ago

It seems like you didn’t finish your response… Why is depopulation terrifying? And why shouldn’t we be concerned about resource constraints? Malthus being wrong implies nothing about the future.

hef19898 3y ago
Depopolating is just another word for genocid, that's why it is terrifying. Or at least should br, but then some people are just too edgy to get that.
- naasking 3y ago
  Or it's a cute term for oppressing people to a degree that they don't want to follow natural instincts to procreate. For instance, developed nations economically penalize parenthood to such an extent that native birth rate is now below replacement in all of them with only a few exceptions.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    That birth rates go down withe conomic prosperity has nothing to do with government oppression... That talking point is utter BS, and close to the conspiracy theory of the great "replacement" ...
    - naasking 3y ago
      Who said anything about government oppression?
  - aranelsurion 3y ago
    This seems to me only partially true. Sure if everyone had one-percenter level resources they'd be more inclined to procreate, though the cultural change and the shifted focus to individualism and one's own experience in life (YOLO thinking, if I may) probably has as much or even more effect on it. As an anecdata, most people I know are somewhere on the low-class to upper-mid class, and the ones who want kids seem to always have at least one, consequences be damned, and the ones who don't, often don't put a price tag on it and merely use it as an excuse if they feel pressured. Also the `natural instinct` may not be a given here, since up until recently the instinct to have sex and procreate meant the same results for humans just like other animals, which no longer holds true either.

chaostheory 3y ago

It’s not terrifying because it has been happening since the 1950s. One theory is that as countries industrialize, their males become less fertile over subsequent generations. (This theory accounts for socioeconomic changes like abortion and being too poor to afford children.) It’s not too surprising given chemicals like BPA aka synthetic estrogen is so pervasive that now it’s in clothes and paper receipts. Almost no country is safe except for a few in central Africa https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/11/25/world-population-increase-peak-chart-age-gender/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/11/25/world-popu... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/22/ageing-planet-the-new-demographic-timebomb https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/22/ageing-planet-...

hef19898 3y ago
How can one look at those numbers, and take, after mixing it other issues like birth control, such a deeply wrong conclusion?
- chaostheory 3y ago
  They account for socioeconomic changes like abortion and birth control ie these trends started long before the sexual revolution and long before abortion was even legal. It is not a “deeply wrong conclusion” unless no one bother to read any of it. Completely ignoring the endocrine disrupter pollution just shows you completely ignored my comment. The key is declining male fertility https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230327-how-pollution-is-causing-a-male-fertility-crisis https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230327-how-pollution-is...
  - hef19898 3y ago
    I know, declining male fertility is such a nice talking point, you know men being less manly and all that. Funny so, that while micro plastics and whatnot sure are ugly and cannot be ignored, all other studies do not mention male fertility as a root cause, but rather: - urbanization and changes in lifestyle - women pursuing a life other than being a mother - birth control (the reason why birth control reduces the number of kids per couple should be obvious...) - economic incentives change from large families (old style, labour intensive farming) to smaller families (industrial labour and office work in cities) - Covid source: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/birthrates-declining-globally-why-matters/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/birthrates-declining-...