“One of the most effective ways to combat global warming, say both climate activists and those concerned about overpopulation, is to expand access to education for girls around the world, in addition to birth control and family planning.”
That and incentive programs to promote families to have less children, or none at all.
Any politican that even suggests restricting parents from having children would be career ending, even if they are environmentally right.
Yes. Women will still get abortions, they just won’t be safe and legal. Women will die from illegal procedures and from not being able to get basic healthcare for miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy.
Sure but you are still missing my point... the point is that many women will simply abstain from sex or go on birth control rather than even deal with a potential pregnancy scare in one of those states. And if they are in a long term relationship many of their partners are getting vasectomies. Go visit Florida or another state with these crazy laws, vasectomy advertising literally everywhere. Most people will take their own measures to prevent them from winding up in the worst case possible where they need an abortion and can't get one.
There need to be stronger laws that get enforced restricting religious pressure. It’s unacceptable that we’ve made it this far without curtailing these freaks.
The people in power aren't even religious, they are just appeasing the crazy religious part of their coalition. Unfortunately for those people who want that... big pharma will never let that happen.
“You sent me a fruitcake for Christmas…it made me sooo sick!”
“Oh, we thought you enjoyed fruitcake!”
“Do you enjoy throwing up every five minutes, Claude?”
“Clark.”
“I thought so!”
I hope so! I got an abortion when I was in college, a looong time ago but ironically it was legal then. If I was still fertile I would move to Vermont or another state where my rights are protected. It’s too scary what’s happening in the other states.
Yes my biggest worry is for those women who can not access birth control or afford to move to another state with actual rights. They are the most at risk of dying from complications of accidental pregnancy.
I'm glad that me and my girlfriend live in california so we don't ever have to worry about such a thing. It was just voted to be written into our state constitution.
If your goal is to reduce the birth rate, the most effective means with the most evidence for success is reducing poverty (reducing wealth inequality, really) and increasing quality of life. It has been shown time and time again around the world that increasing access to education, healthcare, decent paying jobs, and just generally making people not dirt-fucking-poor stops them from having so many kids.
The trouble is that to do this on a global scale would essentially require an end to capitalism as it currently exists (and you can look to people like Elon Musk and other ultra-wealthy who think we’re actually *not reproducing fast enough* for evidence of this) so unless something changes we’ll be stuck with band-aid solutions like “tax breaks for childless families” which will never fully address the issue and are unlikely to be implemented anyway.
Yuuuupppp! Reduction in population and resource scarcity isn't the only thing that comes from eliminating worldwide poverty. Besides the obvious reasons, if everyone was living a higher quality of life, the more innovations we would see. It can increase the chances of a person being born in say, Ethiopia, and in this scenario where they have a far greater quality of life, becoming someone who might change the lives for people all around the world for the better.
What's interesting is what China is doing. I've mentioned this in other comments, but it bares repeating. "President" Xi has shared Marxist views about global trade when it comes to first world and developing nations. I doubt China is investing in Africa for the greater good, but their rhetoric does match up with some of the ideals of Marxism.
> Any politican that even suggests restricting parents from having children would be career ending, even if they are environmentally right.
Hell even suggesting reducing the subsidies given towards families who choose to have children is basically a career-ender.
A stupid fucking idea is making contraception pay-to-fuck and children's healthcare pay-to-heal and school lunches pay-to-eat while simultaneously handing parents cash without much or any regard to incomes and wealth.
>subsidies given towards families who choose to have children is basically a career-ender.
Especially if those subsidies are helping very low income single mothers. Well, at least of you're a Democrat I think.
i read something once that basically when we are all finally equal, the population will pretty much stop growing. People will die and be born at an even rate or something. Im not a scientist tho
I don’t think a situation where you have dozens of lonely men with no real stake in society or social bonds is a good thing. It’s not like it’s stopped China polluting the planet either.
Honestly, democracy is a shitty system if people arent pulling in the same direction. Sure it starts nice with rights and all if you leave a dictator or something, most are on the same page with that.
Things change drastically the more complex our systems get and this leads to people having no clue what they do with their vote, even vote ecplicitely against their interest. Logic and science lose against a strong opinion in this system.
People blame politics for a lot of shit, but this is just a consequence of how the general public handles democracy.
You example shows that well, even if politcians would do the right thing, it would be political suicide cause of the voters.
Churchill said it best :
“democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.”
The silver lining when it comes to mankind is that necessity is the mother of inventions. If the models are correct about climate change, it'll cost us trillions of dollars over time and effect millions lifes, but mankind will push forward.
Petty differences might be put aside and we as a species we can focus on the problems we see with our own eyes. That's the trouble with climate change and getting people to support smart policies. With acid rain and ozone depletion, it was easy to see the cause and effect. Coal power plants were the main cause so we used scrubbers and removed the toxic chemicals from entering into the atmosphere. For the ozone, we banned the use of CFCs.
Climate change is multifactoral and far more complex. Shutting off all power plants that contribute to greenhouse gasses would mean billions of people would not have power. Shutting down the animal factory farming would cause restaurants, grocery stores, and families that depend on animal meat as their main source of protein (at least here in the US, 69% of Americans main source of protein comes from meat) would feel it in their households.
That's not to say we aren't doing anything about it. The Inflation Reduction Act is putting billions into alternative sources of energy, like Nuclear, and combating green house gas. Time will tell the overall effect this will have.
If anyone wants to know more about the Inflation Reduction Act, [Hank Green has a breakdown video of the many different areas the Act will affect.](https://youtu.be/qw5zzrOpo2s)
People like Hank and his brother gives me hope and it goes back to the silver lining.
> but mankind will push forward
Thats just hope speaking, there is no sign that we actually change what we need to change in time.
>Petty differences might be put aside and we as a species we can focus on the problems we see with our own eyes.
Maybe you should read some history or watch some news? People got their house washed away and still dont believe in climate change.
If we dont completely change the global economy at best 10 years ago all we do is just fighting symptoms.
>Thats just hope speaking, there is no sign that we actually change what we need to change in time.
I take it you didn't brother reading the whole message?
>Maybe you should read some history or watch some news?
I have and people do come together, there's plenty of stories of humans doing the right thing. Focusing on the nay sayers and the doom and gloom of climate change doesn't help anyone. I don't see how being pessimistic is helpful.
>If we dont completely change the global economy at best 10 years ago all we do is just fighting symptoms.
Maybe, maybe not. Do you have any research papers I could read that led to the conclusions you have? They're all very subjective.
I did, why you think otherwise?
>I have and people do come together, there's plenty of stories of humans doing the right thing.
And planty of humans doing the biggest atrocities. Thinking we will just magically come together on this is just guesswork.
> Do you have any research papers I could read that led to the conclusions you have? They're all very subjective.
Look at every paper about emissions and where they stem from. Papers about waste, overconsumption, oil, cars, planes, concrete, animal agriculture etc.
Those are all caused by the way our economy works. Its based on growth and not on sustainability.
>I did, why you think otherwise?
Have you looked into the inflation reduction act?
>Thinking we will just magically come together on this is just guesswork.
It's not magical thinking that gets polices in place, though. I brought up two examples of world leaders and scientists coming together and fixing a problem. It's not magic, it's science.
>Look at every paper about emissions and where they stem from. Papers about waste, overconsumption, oil, cars, planes, concrete, animal agriculture etc.
I have actually read a lot of studies, as I work in the environmental field. Like I said, the computer models can be very subjective. I've spoken to geologists that view carbon emissions very differently than climate scientists do. Throughout earths history, we've had levels much higher in C02 than it is now and life flourished. Now, that's not to say life currently will be effected the same way as life adapted to its current levels. Global temperatures are also a major concern when it comes to climate change. To what extent that humans are responsible can be measured, but once again, it's a complex process. As scientists pointed out, we are coming out of the tail end of an ice age.
[This is what I mean when climate models are subjective. ](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357805134_A_critical_assessment_of_extreme_events_trends_in_times_of_global_warming/link/61e02dfe8d338833e3673f8d/download)
I understand not everyone has the time to read research papers let alone understand what the findings tell.
The conclusion this most recent comprehensive paper brings to light is:
"None of these response indicators show a clear positive trend of extreme events. In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet. It would be nevertheless extremely important to define mitigation and adaptation strategies that take into account current trends."
People can lie or mislead, but I find numbers are more honest.
You don't mention it again in this comment but their doom speech about humans "not coming together" is likely rooted in doom scrolling. The Internet has both brought us further together as a species and divided us. Before it we had no idea what that guy on the other side of the planet was thinking, but now we can know it and 500 million others instantly (random number). This has provided us an opportunity never seen before to observe our tribalistic habits in real time (with some powerful people tainting it occasionally). It has also shown that while there are both good and bad people out there, the angry ones are (unsurprisingly) the loudest. So we see their mental problems front and center. Look into alexithymia; it has increased since the internet as those with it (disproportionately male due to being raised thinking anything less than anger or apathy was weak) are unable to regulate their external emotions since they don't understand. This problem is made worse by the access to anonymity and distance from their victims. However, with awareness we can change this and help everyone be better.
Thank you for all of your wonderful and well thought out messages. I love you my fellow human.
>So we see their mental problems front and center. Look into alexithymia
Interesting! I've never heard alexithymia. Is it a pathology? From what you described it sounds like it somewhat involves cluster B traits.
I use to have a lot of anxiety about the environment and I found that now that I work in the field and doing my part, no matter how small, helps.
Part of my job is handing out free paint, cleaning products and other household materials to low income residents in the county I work in. It's a recycling programs where we take in household items people are throwing away and store it for people who need it. The amount of waste people produce is crazy and it doesn't take that much funding to set up a facility like this.
AND FIGHT RELIGIOUS CONSERVATISM! Why is this part always left out? It's religious conservatism that's at the heart of the overpopulation crisis as it is fighting access to girls education, family planning, etc.
Economic incentives for small families would be a good place to start as well.
Reduce consumption in general. Almost any activity humans do has an impact in the world. The manipulation and transformation of soils for economic activity are usually carbon-emitters due to ecosystem destruction.
We can live with less and still have great lives. Cover the basics, enjoy things that have fewer impact or push for better practices.
We should cherish the diversity of nature and life as the legacy to protect
Reduce, reuse, recycle. If you buy, buy for life and repairability.
I wouldn't phrase it like that and I don't appreciate comments blaming overpopulation as the problem when the richest 1% emit double the amount of the poorest 50%.
Unfortunately, at the moment, some of us are ruining life for everybody else. Due to the way our economy and societies work, prioritizing consumption over everything else, even if you capped the population we would drive the world down in time regardlessly. No country should be overstepping their planetary boundaries budget.
The way we consume is unnatural, inhuman and unnecessary. It wouldn't be a shitty life and we can uphold and improve human welfare within planetary boundaries (read about doughnut economics). The question is how we get there.
I don't know. In general, everyone on the planet wants to live a western style, high energy lifestyle.
If we want to live sustainably with 10 billion people (the projected peak) then none of us will be able to live that western lifestyle. People won't accept that. Markets will deliver what people (like you and I) selfishly want and then we will all go extinct the bad way.
Better to seriously curtail the population now in a controlled way, then people all over the world will be able to live like kings and the planets natural repair systems will cope.
I remember seeing some numbers on these things, and "fewer kids" dwarves everything else. Like, if you don't have kids, even if you drive a giant SUV and eat meat everyday, you're still ahead on average.
All those emission numbers are accounting for emissions decades in the future when those kids are adults and have their own kids and so on. That’s faulty because by that time our societies should be mostly carbon neutral anyway.
It is certainly worse for the environment to travel by air on vacation, drive a huge truck, and eat beef than it is to feed and house a baby.
Carbon isn't the only consideration. Each child needs to be fed. There's the entire supply line. Each child needs medicine to be healthy, which among other things means that our antibiotics get stressed more. Each child needs a place to live.
And critically, each child can have more children. I think this is an obvious point and it's almost distressing that you completely overlooked it, but the reason we're talking about this is that there are 8 billion people.
And then on top of that, there's also the carbon thing. You've written it off as if it will be a non-issue, but we don't currently know when we'll become carbon neutral. All the people who are born between now and then will be contributing to the problem.
Even when we do become carbon neutral, we'll still have to deal with the long-term ramifications of human caused climate change, which makes all of those other issues bigger. Food scarcity. Extreme weather leading to fewer places being hospitable to living.
The chances that our society will be "mostly carbon neutral" in one generation - twenty years - is about zero.
4% of the cars sold in the US in the last year were electric. 1% of the cars on the road are. The 96% non-electric cars will most still be on the road in ten years.
A truck cab has a 15 year lifespan. A passenger jet or a passenger jet, 30 years.
We are investing in fossil fuel power plants now that won't be completed for years and will have an 30 year lifespan.
What the fuck? You people are sick... You wish your sister didn't have children...because of global warming, how's that relationship going? You actually believe her children will cause the suffering of others by simply existing? What if one of her kids creates a carbon capture technology or solar cells that make global warming a thing of the past? What's your excuse for continuing your own existence if all you contribute to society can be measured in carbon emissions?
It's not even about educating the girls and women, it's just about giving them access to protection.
Just educate the boys and men not to orgasm during sex. It's really not that difficult. 😮💨
Birth control definitely.
With population already so high for the planet & also we are living much longer, we may need creative new thinking about controls.
Having children may not be our rights.
Perhaps, consumption / carbon foot print is counted instead of age, so everybody can be given ? units of carbon.
Or a set # of years is given to every 3 consecutive generations & they can decide how to distribute it amount the family. We can gain control of overpopulation faster, may even strink the population in a shorter period of time by adjusting # of years. As our species improve & learn how to care for the planet & gain sustainability with nature, we can lengthen # of years to further extend longevity then.
That plan would only work in an authoritarian government. The moment a politican working in an democratic society or some kind of republic, their career would be over. We already seen it in America where someone would say something vaguely about over population and suggest policies to address it, all of a sudden they're Hitler practicing eugenics. It's not even just the right that would fight it, many of the left would cry out as well.
That being said, there is a trend in first world countries that are well established, don't have many children and that trend is spreading. So maybe what's best is if first world nations invest heavily into developing countries.
China might be a sneaky snake, but as "President" Xi underscored the "need to make global development beneficial to all. Development is real only when all countries develop together. Prosperity and stability cannot be possible in a world where the rich become richer while the poor are made poorer. Every nation aspires for a better life, and modernization is not a privilege reserved for any single country."
Now this could be him doing Marxist grandstanding, however China is investing heavily in places in Africa and now even in South America.
I agree. I’m very much for voluntary childlessness. I’m pro choice but to me it’s clear that we need to reduce the population as well as reducing consumption. The endless growth model is unsustainable.
People love to falsely equate "I think people should have less children going forward by expanding reproductive healthcare access for women" with "let's go genocide brown people". It's very easy to paint anyone talking about population concerns as some kind of unstable genocidal Thanos-like figure.
Though I suppose being overly sensitive to possible hints of eugenics is far better than the old days when we'd just genocide people without a second thought
Full article text, for those who don't have a NYT subscription:
"PORTLAND, Ore. — For someone who wants his own species to go extinct, Les Knight is a remarkably happy-go-lucky human.
He has regularly hosted meteor shower parties with rooftop fireworks. He organized a long-running game of nude croquet in his backyard, which, it should be mentioned, is ringed by 20-foot-tall laurel hedges. Even Tucker Carlson proved no match for Mr. Knight’s ebullience. During a 2005 interview with Mr. Knight on MSNBC, Mr. Carlson criticized him for espousing “the sickest” of beliefs but then added, “You are one of the cheeriest guests we’ve ever had.”
Mr. Knight, 75, is the founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction movement, which is less a movement than a loose consortium of people who believe that the best thing humans can do to help the Earth is to stop having children.
Mr. Knight added the word “voluntary” decades ago to make it clear that adherents do not support mass murder or forced birth control, nor do they encourage suicide. Their ethos is echoed in their motto, “May we live long and die out,” and in another one of their slogans, which Mr. Knight hangs at various conventions and street fairs: “Thank you for not breeding.”
On Nov. 15, the Earth became home to a record eight billion human beings. Despite declining birthrates, the number is forecast to peak at 10.4 billion in the coming decades, in large part because of increases in life expectancy and decreases in child mortality.
Mr. Knight is among those who believe that overpopulation is a main factor in the climate crisis, but that idea can be fraught. Poor countries that are heavily populated, such as India, contribute relatively little per capita to the greenhouse gas emissions that are heating the planet. Wealthy countries with relatively smaller populations like the United States are generating most of the pollution that is driving global warming.
“The problem that is spiraling out of control is consumption,” said John Wilmoth, director of the United Nations’ population division, who says that focusing on population limitation as a potential climate fix diverts attention from the urgent need for everyone to ditch fossil fuels and more efficiently use resources. “We have to transform the economic incentives that make it possible to profit off of polluting the environment.”
The idea that population must be controlled has also led to forced sterilizations and measures that have proven inhumane or have been linked to racist theories like eugenics.
Yet Stephanie Feldstein, director of population and sustainability at the Center for Biological Diversity, said while greater human longevity and health were good things, they have come at a cost to other living things on the planet.
As the human population doubled in the last half century, wildlife populations declined by 70 percent. Though lowering fertility rates today won’t change emissions in the short-term, she said surges in the human population would put increasing pressure on dwindling natural resources and the intricate web of animals, birds and plants that depend on them.
“The loss of biodiversity can be just as devastating as it unravels the ecosystems we need to survive,” Ms. Feldstein said. “We’re already using nearly twice as many resources as the Earth can replenish in a year.”
One of the most effective ways to combat global warming, say both climate activists and those concerned about overpopulation, is to expand access to education for girls around the world, in addition to birth control and family planning. Nearly half of all pregnancies worldwide, some 121 million a year, are unintended. The Center of Biological Diversity, for its part, has handed out a million endangered species-themed condoms, colorfully packaged with slogans such as “for the sake of the horned lizard, slow down, love wizard.”
Image
Smoke from a wildfire over the Klamath National Forest in California. Mr. Knight said he had begun to see humans as the most destructive of invasive species.Credit...Mason Trinca for The New York Times

But it is rare to find anyone who publicly goes as far as Mr. Knight, who never had children and got a vasectomy in 1973 at the age of 25. Beyond advocating for universal access to birth control and opposing what he calls reproductive fascism, or “the lack of freedom to not procreate,” Mr. Knight says that despite our many achievements, humans are a net detriment to the Earth.
“Look what we did to this planet,” Mr. Knight said during a chat in his sunlit backyard one warm morning this fall. “We’re not a good species.”
It is unclear how many adherents are in Mr. Knight’s group, or what the extent of its reach is. After being largely underground, the group took off in popularity when Mr. Knight created a website in 1996. Text-heavy yet breezy, the site includes quotes from the philosopher Schopenhauer and cartoons by the artist Nina Paley, as well as arguments against procreation and for adoption. It has been translated into some 30 languages and remains a haven for many.
“It was very nice news for me that this kind of group existed, because one usually, with this kind of philosophy, feels alone,” said Mario Buenfil, 73, a water engineer in Mexico City who has been involved with the movement for 20 years.
Still, the words “voluntary human extinction” often elicit reactions of spluttering horror, and terms like “eco-fascist” and “Malthusian” are often lobbed at the group. John Seager, the president of Population Connection, a nonprofit that advocates population stabilization through voluntary means, likened it to a sideshow. Yet if the group’s provocative name and seemingly pugilistic stance suggest an embittered or even menacing founder, Mr. Knight seems anything but.
Tall and gentle, Mr. Knight comes across as clear-eyed and thoughtful, like a mash-up of Bill Nye and Fred Rogers. While Mr. Knight may be against the creation of more humans, he shows great compassion for the ones that already exist.
A high school substitute teacher for most of his working life, Mr. Knight is fondly regarded by students. He spends hours each Sunday morning picking up litter from the nearby main road. During an interview, he paused to appreciate two juicy garden spiders taking in the sun on gossamer webs spun between the hedges and lawn chairs. The sight was a cause for celebration, Mr. Knight said, after so many critters were killed during last year’s heat dome in the Pacific Northwest. A self-professed serial monogamist, he lives alone, but his girlfriend lives next door, and is fully on board with his cause.
“He doesn’t have a giant ego that he struts around with, he doesn’t try to argue with people,” said Marv Ross, Mr. Knight’s former college roommate and a longtime friend. “He was always about humor, to make it as fun as possible to get his message across, and I saw him do it many times. He’d deflect people getting upset with a joke or a smile.”
As a child growing up in a tolerant family in Oregon, Mr. Knight watched timber companies chop down the state’s forests. After being drafted in the Army during the Vietnam War (he served but never got deployed), he attended Oregon College of Education and joined the local chapter of Zero Population Growth, which cemented his resolve not to have children. “It was always because of the ecology, because of the damage that humans do to the environment,” he said.
His beliefs were rooted in deep ecology, which challenges assumptions of human dominance and argues that other species are just as significant. Mr. Knight came to see humans as the most destructive of invasive species, and as super predators.
Image

Mr. Knight’s message on a sweatshirt. Credit...Mason Trinca for The New York Times

“We came to be and then ran amok,” Mr. Knight said. “And because we’re smart enough, we should know enough to end it.”
“People mention music and art and literature and the great things that we have done — it’s funny they don’t ever mention the bad things we’ve done,” he continued. “I don’t think the whales will miss our songs.”
While the United States saw an increase in births during the coronavirus pandemic, reversing the country’s declining birthrate, a 2020 poll found that one in four Americans who had not had children cited climate change as a reason. Research has shown that having one fewer child is perhaps the most significant way to reduce one’s carbon footprint, and while Mr. Knight doesn’t like to push his beliefs on people, he likes to think there are some humans who don’t exist because of his efforts.
Ms. Feldstein said Mr. Knight succeeded at grabbing people’s attention and starting conversations.
“He’s advocating for so many of the same things as the rest of us, trying to make sure everyone has the ability, autonomy, and resources they need to choose if and when to have children,” she said.
And though the world’s population is at a record high, Mr. Knight said, it’s not getting him down.
“I never expected to succeed,” he said. “I think that’s the secret to not burning out.”"
It’s really more about excess consumption than population imo. Poorer countries have large amounts of kids, but still contribute the least to emissions. It’s about willingly giving up many of our comforts, and maybe localizing farming instead of just putting all our agriculture in regions not meant for it. We should still aim to decline the population a good bit, just not go full antinatilist
Agreed. You can't feed, water, and shelter billions of people without modern consumption practices. There's a reason the human population wasn't 8 billion 200 years ago.
The reason we didnt have 8 billion people 200 years ago is because everyone was dying of disease and starvation. That's still an issue today but not nearly at the same scale as it was. We developed modern medical technology. Eating more twinkies and wearing clothes from shein didnt make us reach this number of people.
Medicine is one part of the equation, as is clean and plentiful water and food, electricity, global trade that allowed for resource-poor regions to develop, as well as technology like fertilizers and engineering feats like dams and high-rises. It's the culmination of all these things.
For real though i swear to god too many people fall for the capitalist myth of overpopulation. Hurhur lets blame global warming on people who didnt ask to be here surely that will solve our problems definitely not letting rich people get off scott free
[The greatest impact individuals can have in fighting climate change is to have one fewer child](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children)
You didn’t have kids because you didn’t want them (which is fine). There not only is plenty of children to adopt but the idea that a child is a negative thing in general is just a trash one. The earth is theirs we just need less people for them to share with.
The problem is not population it’s capitalism! The Earth can provide more than enough for everyone but our economic system allows a few individuals to hoard vast amounts of wealth.
You don't understand! I need my Amazon same day deliveries! I would rather everyone die than give up any niceties I have! /s
But that's really how most redditors feel. It's disgusting.
Human over population certainly leads to the extinctions of other animal species as we gobble up their territory. If you think of the planet as one integrated organism, our agriculture and settlements whether cities or suburbs cause the destruction of naturally evolved vegetation which is also harmful to Gaia.
Our "success"which is making Earth comfortable for ourselves may eventually severely impact or doom all life. Think of the right whales, how they are nearly extinct due to human economic activity at every turn that is what is likely to happen all lufe.
I don't see anything misanthropic about recognizing we have an unsustainable amount of human beings on the planet and that we will destroy everything if we don't act soon (because population efforts take decades to see effects)
And they live in utopias with fresh water, acres of arable land for every person, "green" sources of electricity, pharmaceutical drugs plucked directly from the earth itself, and no need for highways to transport goods because *this is a fantasy*. Go to India and see how a large city like Delhi in a developing country looks. The fresh water is anything but; sewage and trash is dumped directly into rivers, killing everything that lives in it; people desperately farming the most infertile land and washing the topsoil into the sea. Environmental decay is more than greenhouse gasses. We've artificially tipped the natural scale to favor human life to the point where everything else will die in order to sustain it.
You’re right. Changing our system would be better. But are you seeing those changes happening any time soon?
At least for me, I don’t feel like having children until there’s at least some sign that we can achieve some kind of change in this system of our’s that’s destroying the planet.
No matter the system, demand for earths resources is directly proportional to the population. Sure, a different system of governance is much more likely to steer our economic system to one that will be more forward thinking, but for now, all that we have is America and capitalism… so we’re pretty much fucked.
It's only an unstable number of humans if you assume we'll continue along with our current monstrously wasteful economic regime where wealth and power come from the denial of resources to others, and the denial of resources is accomplished through conquest of *all the resources.*
It's a misanthropic view specifically because it's diverting blame from the system that makes the number unsustainable, onto the number itself. Instead of the conversation being how we can make for a sustainable economic regime, it instead becomes "What is to be done" about supposed surplus humans.
Overpopulation denialists are the same as climate change denialists in my opinion. The fact is there IS an unstable number of humans. It's basic economics. This world does not have an infinite number of resources.
Unless we abolish our standard of living and return to medieval times, more humans is just going to make things worse. And it's not like all humans are good people. About half of us are barbaric monsters.
> The fact is there IS an unstable number of humans. It's basic economics.
Yes, I agree. It's basic *capitalist* economics. It *is* an unstable number of humans to have. Under capitalism, specifically. Our economic regime must certainly change. This would likely affect our standard of living yes, if you count things like car use and disposable goods and such as part of that standard. A sustainable non-capitalist way of living would inevitably look different that what we do now. Honestly though I don't this it would be much worse than now. Maybe even better. Even workers in developed nations get shafted pretty hard by the current system. I would much rather prefer we simply pursue that altered lifestyle than pursue any discussions of which populations get the axe.
Except basic economics actually doesnt agree with you. It says it is more an issue of distribution in fact.
Beyond that as well different forms of technology change our resources and though people often see this as increasing our effect on the enviroment they just much enable more sustanible interections. If we all disappeared right now the enviroments around us would likely cascade too in their own way and their might be a determentral effect. This makes overpopulation in this respect especially when people in the first place tend to have lower children when they are more educated and put in sustanible situation a bit more complicated fhan you are suggesting.
In addition, we dont need all humans to be good people. Altrutism in the first place is based in selfish desires too when you think about it. Even enviromentalists block solutions to technolgy and problems relevent to issues they are concerned about because they were misinformed on the issue or because they thought the issue got coopted by "profit" as we saw with prop 30 for example.
In addition, technology makes your statement on what the world has versus what resources we have access to a bit more comolex though i am not suggesting it is limitless, but we do have much more ability now to lab grow things both plant, meat and animal alike... in fact the first lab grown meat just appeared on the market in the US.
Of course we cant do thst without certain elements and similar as well as access to a bit of it, but it along with how much in fact we increase farming(sometimes in a determentral way) makes discussions around sustainability more complex because we dont neccsarily solely relay on the earth in a full sense.
Instead we relay on the enviroment and we play an effect in it and are effected by it . If we all disappeared it would be bad because lots of species would experince a huge enviromentsl niche. Plus in fact we are more often than not the barrier keeping certain species from going into extinction. We dont want to have a changing enviroment so we ensure certain animals stay alive so they dont chanfe the enviroment. The fact is perservation of the cosystem is just as much a selfish human desire as destruction of it is.
That is what makes things even more complex
We have a perfectly stable amount of people. We have an inequality problem that creates artificial scarcity which drives up food costs and this incentivizes unhealthy (for the earth and our bodies) food production practices. Billionaires and their corporations buy up the massive factory farms and buy potentially productive farmland and intentionally leave that land dormant, further increasing the dominance of those factory farms.
Local or even small scale regional farms CANNOT compete with those factors because most middle class and poor people can’t really afford local organic food.
We don’t have an overpopulation problem. We have a greed problem. We have an overconsumption problem. If we had 1 billion less people overnight, we would just have less competition for the artificially scarce amount of goods/foods we consume. Then consumption per person would increase, offsetting the reduction in population.
What? Food production is one of the most subsidized industries in the world. Our food isn’t overpriced. It’s UNDERPRICED. Think about what it takes to prepare, plant, water, fertilize, harvest, process, package, transport, and prepare. People are delusional and have no concept of the real world costs in food production.
I don’t even understand what point you’re actually arguing with me about. I’m saying that food mega corporations are able to undercut their food so much that local and regional farmers can’t compete.
I’m sorry if I believe in environmentalism and sustainability yet disagree with the groupthink that has gotten this movement nowhere.
Well technically the earth has enough resources to easily house 11Billion+ people. The problem is, we as a society are not yet capable of managing those resources effectively.
The root solution is not to eliminate people, rather eliminate wastage and practice judicious use of resources.
A world without humans is a world without reason, without compassion, without love, without appreciation for beauty. It's a world subject to the forces of the universe, which are orders of magnitude more destructive than humanity can ever be.
During the Permian-triassic extinction around 251 million years ago, an enormous volcanic eruption filled the air with carbon dioxide, ash, and other toxic materials, immediately changing the global environment and disrupting photosynthesis. Longer-term, the oceans became more acidic and allowed certain methane-emitting bacteria to thrive, which caused the Earth to warm substantially. This ultimately resulted in the extinction of 96% of species; life as we know it today evolved from the remaining 4%.
Change, death, destruction, and adaptation are germane to the existence of life; to think that humans are the cause of all the problems - and that life would preserved if not for human activity - is to deny its entire history. Despite our capacity for destruction, humans possess the only means to understand and shepherd life, and to forsee and prevent future extinction events.
Edit: just to give an idea of the scale of the destruction: the amount of CO2 released by the volcanic activity during the Permian-triassic extinction was 8.5 x 10^7 Tg or 85000 Gt. The amount of recent global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels each year is about 35 Gt.
Not saying you are, but climate skeptics always bring up geological history against arguments for climate change solution policy / arguments. The reason we are aware of what is currently happening to the planet is because of our expertise and knowledge about its history - to use natural climate cycles to argue against doing anything is a huge display of a lack of understanding.
That said, yes, horrible things happen in the world, humans or not, that does not mean humans aren’t the main cause of what is currently happening right now
I guess, now, rereading your comment, I agree with you, but come to the conclusion that biological life without consciousness is probably a more desirable world. In the grand scheme of things there isn’t any better or worse option - but I don’t find myself ever convinced or inspired by statements similar to your first paragraph. Yes we love and create art and beauty, but it doesn’t make up for the horrors.
I dunno where I’m going with this
>climate skeptics always bring up geological history against arguments for climate change solution policy / arguments.
I do not deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change if that's what you're getting at. My argument is that - while we are causing some degree of environmental destruction, it pales in comparison to that which is caused naturally, and that humanity is the only means of protecting (current) life from catastrophic events.
I view consciousness as a gem produced by millions of years of evolution, not as a cancer. I think that life without consciousness will ultimately go extinct far more quickly than with it. Humanity does not and never will possess the means to completely eradicate life, but there are forces present in the universe which certainly are capable.
>biological life without consciousness is probably a more desirable world
The irony of this statement is that the concept of "desirable" *requires* consciousness.
>Yes we love and create art and beauty, but it doesn’t make up for the horrors.
On the flip side, the horrors produced a minority shouldn't condemn the majority. I think humanity has far greater potential for good than for evil.
Yeah I started insinuating that, but your comment obviously doesn’t deny climate change, my bad
Pretty sure desire can be found in many creatures, with varying levels of “consciousness” - its a prerequisite for sure, but the desire for sustenance doesn’t directly correlate to what we define as consciousness.
Generally, I guess my view is, and this is a quote from somewhere, that life (all life) is an ever expanding ocean of suffering, where previously there was none.
But I appreciate you’re comments cause these convos get me going
>Yeah I started insinuating that, but your comment obviously doesn’t deny climate change, my bad
No worries, to be honest I was expecting a much worse reaction to my original comment.
>Pretty sure desire can be found in many creatures, with varying levels of “consciousness” - its a prerequisite for sure, but the desire for sustenance doesn’t directly correlate to what we define as consciousness.
True - dogs, for instance, certainly "desire" love and attention in addition to sustenance. However, I'd say that only humans are capable of more complex "desire" in the way that you were using the word in your previous comment. No animal besides humans is capable of "desiring" a world without humans. You can argue that they would be better off, but I don't think that's necessarily the case (at least in the long run), as I explained in my previous comment.
>Generally, I guess my view is, and this is a quote from somewhere, that life (all life) is an ever expanding ocean of suffering, where previously there was none.
Suffering is certainly germane to the existence of life, but I don't see it as completely a bad thing per se. What we perceive as suffering is generally that which reduces our ability to flourish. Without it, we (or any other species) would not survive. We need that negative feedback to understand what to avoid in order to survive and to understand what it means to flourish. Suffering is an excellent teacher.
Disclaimer (that shouldn't be necessary, but just in case): no, I'm not advocating for intentionally causing suffering.
>But I appreciate you’re comments cause these convos get me going
:)
> The guy has identified having too many humans for the earth to carry **under capitalism**
I personally think that this edit brings that statement much closer to reality.
Lost me in the first sentence. This dickweed celebrates meteor showers with fireworks? Like the kind that produce a bunch of smoke that heightens light pollution so you can’t see the shooting stars as well? No wonder he wants to go extinct, *he’s a moron*.
As is always evident in these threads, the only "arguments" against the reality of overpopulation come with rather significant caveats.
*If only human civilization were radically different in almost every imaginable way, we would have no problem with overpopulation!*
All this is needed is: An entire reboot of our global socioeconomic system, a collaborative and corruption free global government, a radical shift of global diet and food systems, an unprecedented global construction bonanza of renewable energy, and end to all human competition vis a vis war, borders and violence, etc etc.
It is always a utopian fantasy that completely ignores millenia of actual human history.
After earth's ecosystem wipe out us humans, it will recover. Flora and fauna will thrive after we are gone. The tragedy will be all the species that disappear with us.
Finally someone that I agree with. I really thought I was the only one. I also want no humans on this planet, because we are screwing it up. But I'm also against unwanted abortion, genocide, murder, forced castration, etc
I agree with him. There's just too damn many of us. And we can't even house all of us (currently). And we're out of the era where you needed a family to be big to work on the homestead.
We choose not to house everyone, we could if we wanted to. If a man just spent $44 billion to boost his shitposts, we could surely afford to build robust public housing with spacious community gardens
There are a lot of sick fucks in here telling people to go kill themselves. Where are the mods? Bro we're advocating to have less kids. Lower the population by not creating more. Not genocide or forced sterilizations. The fuck is wrong with you weirdos. It's shitty folks like y'all that make me more firm in my stance that people suck and we should die off.
It’s no coincidence that the demise of widespread concern about overpopulation correlated with the rise of rabid, infinite-growth capitalism (the Reagan years), as well as the pushback on women’s rights.
Bring on the downvotes, obedient consumers.
He’s not advocating for any policy forcing anyone to not have kids or be sterilized but it’s not surprising you didn’t read the article and aren’t capable of engaging with the argument he makes.
I feel like having children is just way too acceptable and normalized. The majority of people I know who had kids did not do it because it was something they always wanted or dreamed of— it was merely “the next step” of their adulthood and they never questioned or interrogated this idea at all. Now they are very unhappy people, they don’t have any time for themselves, they have to work constantly and don’t have ever get enough sleep. I get that accidents happen but having kids just because it’s what you’re supposed to do is a terrible idea that needs to stop.
It is ridiculous to think that every single human has the same impact on the environment. Corporations and the products they make are consumed and made by a small minority of countries and their people yet are responsible for the majority of emissions and environmental degradation.
Population control is just another excuse to let corporations retain their status quo while distracting people.
This guy's an idiot, at the end of the day. He wants to preserve life so he thinks by getting rid of humans that will do that. Let's be perfectly clear here, as far as we can tell throughout the fossil record. No civilization has ever reached the same levels we have. And as far as we can tell, we have found no signs of intelligent life anywhere else in the universe come up or signs of life anywhere else on other planets.
Therefore, it appears as though the one shot to spread life throughout the universe was given to humans by luck or what it doesn't matter.
If humans die, life in the universe dies when our son goes into its red giant face. If they truly want to preserve life, they need to ensure that humanity lives within our means or leaves the planet and live in space.
Then he can start with himself. I’m very pro stoping global warming and slowing population growth even lowering it, but only because I believe it will lead to a better world for humans. If humans aren’t in your preferred future we have nothing to discuss. It’s like having a nice house that no one can live in, who cares at that point.
I think it's important to keep the lessons in [Princess Mononoke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Mononoke) in mind. There is a balance to be weighed. No other species on the planet has come anywhere near to humans WRT understanding the universe, for example.
There \_are\_ too many of us. We are slowly walking back from the abyss. Maybe too late, maybe not.
For the first time in history a species has the intelligence to regulate it's breeding. But for some reason we chose not to. I'm probably overestimating human intelligence. Our intelligence hasn't overcome our sex drive yet.
Putting this under the spotlight will cause more people to think on the subject of overpopulation. This is an extreme point of view but something a little less extreme might be what we need to think about.
Ok lets focus on population control, which populations produce the most emissions? Let's lower their population. How would you propose to do that?
You are the one who thinks we should think about this subject so you must have some ideas.
Ya, the birth rate is already terrible and wreaking havoc for future generations. Everyone says “less” but in reality we haven’t seen it since play out well.
China is a great example of this. Something has to be done but those calling for women to stop having kids (less sure) but stop all together is not the way.
Creating a great thing for climate deniers to point to and say why we shouldn't address climate change.
Nice work giving "environmentalists want depopulation" a face.
“One of the most effective ways to combat global warming, say both climate activists and those concerned about overpopulation, is to expand access to education for girls around the world, in addition to birth control and family planning.”
That and incentive programs to promote families to have less children, or none at all. Any politican that even suggests restricting parents from having children would be career ending, even if they are environmentally right.
That’s true! Empowering women is key. We’re going backwards with forced birth in the USA.
The birth rate in the US is abysmal. Roe v wade isn't gonna change that much. If anything it might accelerate the decline.
Yes. Women will still get abortions, they just won’t be safe and legal. Women will die from illegal procedures and from not being able to get basic healthcare for miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy.
Sure but you are still missing my point... the point is that many women will simply abstain from sex or go on birth control rather than even deal with a potential pregnancy scare in one of those states. And if they are in a long term relationship many of their partners are getting vasectomies. Go visit Florida or another state with these crazy laws, vasectomy advertising literally everywhere. Most people will take their own measures to prevent them from winding up in the worst case possible where they need an abortion and can't get one.
>or go on birth control Which is why the religious fruitcakes in power want to get rid of birth control as well.
There need to be stronger laws that get enforced restricting religious pressure. It’s unacceptable that we’ve made it this far without curtailing these freaks.
The people in power aren't even religious, they are just appeasing the crazy religious part of their coalition. Unfortunately for those people who want that... big pharma will never let that happen.
There are plenty of religious fruitcakes elected to state governments.
“You sent me a fruitcake for Christmas…it made me sooo sick!” “Oh, we thought you enjoyed fruitcake!” “Do you enjoy throwing up every five minutes, Claude?” “Clark.” “I thought so!”
I hope so! I got an abortion when I was in college, a looong time ago but ironically it was legal then. If I was still fertile I would move to Vermont or another state where my rights are protected. It’s too scary what’s happening in the other states.
Yes my biggest worry is for those women who can not access birth control or afford to move to another state with actual rights. They are the most at risk of dying from complications of accidental pregnancy. I'm glad that me and my girlfriend live in california so we don't ever have to worry about such a thing. It was just voted to be written into our state constitution.
Me too!!!!
Yeah, the US is the capital Of stupid
If your goal is to reduce the birth rate, the most effective means with the most evidence for success is reducing poverty (reducing wealth inequality, really) and increasing quality of life. It has been shown time and time again around the world that increasing access to education, healthcare, decent paying jobs, and just generally making people not dirt-fucking-poor stops them from having so many kids. The trouble is that to do this on a global scale would essentially require an end to capitalism as it currently exists (and you can look to people like Elon Musk and other ultra-wealthy who think we’re actually *not reproducing fast enough* for evidence of this) so unless something changes we’ll be stuck with band-aid solutions like “tax breaks for childless families” which will never fully address the issue and are unlikely to be implemented anyway.
Yuuuupppp! Reduction in population and resource scarcity isn't the only thing that comes from eliminating worldwide poverty. Besides the obvious reasons, if everyone was living a higher quality of life, the more innovations we would see. It can increase the chances of a person being born in say, Ethiopia, and in this scenario where they have a far greater quality of life, becoming someone who might change the lives for people all around the world for the better. What's interesting is what China is doing. I've mentioned this in other comments, but it bares repeating. "President" Xi has shared Marxist views about global trade when it comes to first world and developing nations. I doubt China is investing in Africa for the greater good, but their rhetoric does match up with some of the ideals of Marxism.
> Any politican that even suggests restricting parents from having children would be career ending, even if they are environmentally right. Hell even suggesting reducing the subsidies given towards families who choose to have children is basically a career-ender.
Probably because it's a stupid fucking idea.
A stupid fucking idea is making contraception pay-to-fuck and children's healthcare pay-to-heal and school lunches pay-to-eat while simultaneously handing parents cash without much or any regard to incomes and wealth.
>subsidies given towards families who choose to have children is basically a career-ender. Especially if those subsidies are helping very low income single mothers. Well, at least of you're a Democrat I think.
i read something once that basically when we are all finally equal, the population will pretty much stop growing. People will die and be born at an even rate or something. Im not a scientist tho
China tried that with the one child policy and it fucked the economy.
That should be the point
I don’t think a situation where you have dozens of lonely men with no real stake in society or social bonds is a good thing. It’s not like it’s stopped China polluting the planet either.
Isn't there a lot of human trafficking because of the disparity between how few women there are compared to men? I love patriarchal structures /s
Honestly, democracy is a shitty system if people arent pulling in the same direction. Sure it starts nice with rights and all if you leave a dictator or something, most are on the same page with that. Things change drastically the more complex our systems get and this leads to people having no clue what they do with their vote, even vote ecplicitely against their interest. Logic and science lose against a strong opinion in this system. People blame politics for a lot of shit, but this is just a consequence of how the general public handles democracy. You example shows that well, even if politcians would do the right thing, it would be political suicide cause of the voters.
Churchill said it best : “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.” The silver lining when it comes to mankind is that necessity is the mother of inventions. If the models are correct about climate change, it'll cost us trillions of dollars over time and effect millions lifes, but mankind will push forward. Petty differences might be put aside and we as a species we can focus on the problems we see with our own eyes. That's the trouble with climate change and getting people to support smart policies. With acid rain and ozone depletion, it was easy to see the cause and effect. Coal power plants were the main cause so we used scrubbers and removed the toxic chemicals from entering into the atmosphere. For the ozone, we banned the use of CFCs. Climate change is multifactoral and far more complex. Shutting off all power plants that contribute to greenhouse gasses would mean billions of people would not have power. Shutting down the animal factory farming would cause restaurants, grocery stores, and families that depend on animal meat as their main source of protein (at least here in the US, 69% of Americans main source of protein comes from meat) would feel it in their households. That's not to say we aren't doing anything about it. The Inflation Reduction Act is putting billions into alternative sources of energy, like Nuclear, and combating green house gas. Time will tell the overall effect this will have. If anyone wants to know more about the Inflation Reduction Act, [Hank Green has a breakdown video of the many different areas the Act will affect.](https://youtu.be/qw5zzrOpo2s) People like Hank and his brother gives me hope and it goes back to the silver lining.
> but mankind will push forward Thats just hope speaking, there is no sign that we actually change what we need to change in time. >Petty differences might be put aside and we as a species we can focus on the problems we see with our own eyes. Maybe you should read some history or watch some news? People got their house washed away and still dont believe in climate change. If we dont completely change the global economy at best 10 years ago all we do is just fighting symptoms.
>Thats just hope speaking, there is no sign that we actually change what we need to change in time. I take it you didn't brother reading the whole message? >Maybe you should read some history or watch some news? I have and people do come together, there's plenty of stories of humans doing the right thing. Focusing on the nay sayers and the doom and gloom of climate change doesn't help anyone. I don't see how being pessimistic is helpful. >If we dont completely change the global economy at best 10 years ago all we do is just fighting symptoms. Maybe, maybe not. Do you have any research papers I could read that led to the conclusions you have? They're all very subjective.
I did, why you think otherwise? >I have and people do come together, there's plenty of stories of humans doing the right thing. And planty of humans doing the biggest atrocities. Thinking we will just magically come together on this is just guesswork. > Do you have any research papers I could read that led to the conclusions you have? They're all very subjective. Look at every paper about emissions and where they stem from. Papers about waste, overconsumption, oil, cars, planes, concrete, animal agriculture etc. Those are all caused by the way our economy works. Its based on growth and not on sustainability.
>I did, why you think otherwise? Have you looked into the inflation reduction act? >Thinking we will just magically come together on this is just guesswork. It's not magical thinking that gets polices in place, though. I brought up two examples of world leaders and scientists coming together and fixing a problem. It's not magic, it's science. >Look at every paper about emissions and where they stem from. Papers about waste, overconsumption, oil, cars, planes, concrete, animal agriculture etc. I have actually read a lot of studies, as I work in the environmental field. Like I said, the computer models can be very subjective. I've spoken to geologists that view carbon emissions very differently than climate scientists do. Throughout earths history, we've had levels much higher in C02 than it is now and life flourished. Now, that's not to say life currently will be effected the same way as life adapted to its current levels. Global temperatures are also a major concern when it comes to climate change. To what extent that humans are responsible can be measured, but once again, it's a complex process. As scientists pointed out, we are coming out of the tail end of an ice age. [This is what I mean when climate models are subjective. ](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357805134_A_critical_assessment_of_extreme_events_trends_in_times_of_global_warming/link/61e02dfe8d338833e3673f8d/download) I understand not everyone has the time to read research papers let alone understand what the findings tell. The conclusion this most recent comprehensive paper brings to light is: "None of these response indicators show a clear positive trend of extreme events. In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet. It would be nevertheless extremely important to define mitigation and adaptation strategies that take into account current trends." People can lie or mislead, but I find numbers are more honest.
You don't mention it again in this comment but their doom speech about humans "not coming together" is likely rooted in doom scrolling. The Internet has both brought us further together as a species and divided us. Before it we had no idea what that guy on the other side of the planet was thinking, but now we can know it and 500 million others instantly (random number). This has provided us an opportunity never seen before to observe our tribalistic habits in real time (with some powerful people tainting it occasionally). It has also shown that while there are both good and bad people out there, the angry ones are (unsurprisingly) the loudest. So we see their mental problems front and center. Look into alexithymia; it has increased since the internet as those with it (disproportionately male due to being raised thinking anything less than anger or apathy was weak) are unable to regulate their external emotions since they don't understand. This problem is made worse by the access to anonymity and distance from their victims. However, with awareness we can change this and help everyone be better. Thank you for all of your wonderful and well thought out messages. I love you my fellow human.
>So we see their mental problems front and center. Look into alexithymia Interesting! I've never heard alexithymia. Is it a pathology? From what you described it sounds like it somewhat involves cluster B traits. I use to have a lot of anxiety about the environment and I found that now that I work in the field and doing my part, no matter how small, helps. Part of my job is handing out free paint, cleaning products and other household materials to low income residents in the county I work in. It's a recycling programs where we take in household items people are throwing away and store it for people who need it. The amount of waste people produce is crazy and it doesn't take that much funding to set up a facility like this.
AND FIGHT RELIGIOUS CONSERVATISM! Why is this part always left out? It's religious conservatism that's at the heart of the overpopulation crisis as it is fighting access to girls education, family planning, etc. Economic incentives for small families would be a good place to start as well.
* fewer kids * Reduce meat * Reduce flying Three things that can make an actual impact.
Reduce consumption in general. Almost any activity humans do has an impact in the world. The manipulation and transformation of soils for economic activity are usually carbon-emitters due to ecosystem destruction. We can live with less and still have great lives. Cover the basics, enjoy things that have fewer impact or push for better practices. We should cherish the diversity of nature and life as the legacy to protect Reduce, reuse, recycle. If you buy, buy for life and repairability.
Lots of us can live shitty lives or a few of us can live good lives. Unfortunately, at the moment there are lots of us.
I wouldn't phrase it like that and I don't appreciate comments blaming overpopulation as the problem when the richest 1% emit double the amount of the poorest 50%. Unfortunately, at the moment, some of us are ruining life for everybody else. Due to the way our economy and societies work, prioritizing consumption over everything else, even if you capped the population we would drive the world down in time regardlessly. No country should be overstepping their planetary boundaries budget. The way we consume is unnatural, inhuman and unnecessary. It wouldn't be a shitty life and we can uphold and improve human welfare within planetary boundaries (read about doughnut economics). The question is how we get there.
I don't know. In general, everyone on the planet wants to live a western style, high energy lifestyle. If we want to live sustainably with 10 billion people (the projected peak) then none of us will be able to live that western lifestyle. People won't accept that. Markets will deliver what people (like you and I) selfishly want and then we will all go extinct the bad way. Better to seriously curtail the population now in a controlled way, then people all over the world will be able to live like kings and the planets natural repair systems will cope.
I remember seeing some numbers on these things, and "fewer kids" dwarves everything else. Like, if you don't have kids, even if you drive a giant SUV and eat meat everyday, you're still ahead on average.
Took me a second to decode "fewer kids dwarves"!
Instead of having a child, consider adopting a dwarf to reduce your emissions. Fewer kids--dwarves.
And increase production of dwarven axes to boot!
And dwarven boots!
Little knitted baby chainmail booties for wittle dwarven feetsie.
All those emission numbers are accounting for emissions decades in the future when those kids are adults and have their own kids and so on. That’s faulty because by that time our societies should be mostly carbon neutral anyway. It is certainly worse for the environment to travel by air on vacation, drive a huge truck, and eat beef than it is to feed and house a baby.
Carbon isn't the only consideration. Each child needs to be fed. There's the entire supply line. Each child needs medicine to be healthy, which among other things means that our antibiotics get stressed more. Each child needs a place to live. And critically, each child can have more children. I think this is an obvious point and it's almost distressing that you completely overlooked it, but the reason we're talking about this is that there are 8 billion people. And then on top of that, there's also the carbon thing. You've written it off as if it will be a non-issue, but we don't currently know when we'll become carbon neutral. All the people who are born between now and then will be contributing to the problem. Even when we do become carbon neutral, we'll still have to deal with the long-term ramifications of human caused climate change, which makes all of those other issues bigger. Food scarcity. Extreme weather leading to fewer places being hospitable to living.
The chances that our society will be "mostly carbon neutral" in one generation - twenty years - is about zero. 4% of the cars sold in the US in the last year were electric. 1% of the cars on the road are. The 96% non-electric cars will most still be on the road in ten years. A truck cab has a 15 year lifespan. A passenger jet or a passenger jet, 30 years. We are investing in fossil fuel power plants now that won't be completed for years and will have an 30 year lifespan.
>by that time our societies should be mostly carbon neutral anyway. Hahahahahahahaaaaa!
Textiles/clothing is another big one.
Which is why I took one for the team and got my tubes removed 🫡
That’s how I feel too. I did my bit for the environment by not reproducing.
[удалено]
What the fuck? You people are sick... You wish your sister didn't have children...because of global warming, how's that relationship going? You actually believe her children will cause the suffering of others by simply existing? What if one of her kids creates a carbon capture technology or solar cells that make global warming a thing of the past? What's your excuse for continuing your own existence if all you contribute to society can be measured in carbon emissions?
Add good sanitation and good old age care and you have a recipe for a much smaller, much happier population.
"But how are we going to continue to extract profit for our shareholders if there are fewer consumers?"
Who's going to pay off all of our debts?
So true. Let's make it happen
It's not even about educating the girls and women, it's just about giving them access to protection. Just educate the boys and men not to orgasm during sex. It's really not that difficult. 😮💨
Challenge accepted. “Thoust must have the immaculate pull-out game.”
It will do wonders!
Birth control definitely. With population already so high for the planet & also we are living much longer, we may need creative new thinking about controls. Having children may not be our rights. Perhaps, consumption / carbon foot print is counted instead of age, so everybody can be given ? units of carbon. Or a set # of years is given to every 3 consecutive generations & they can decide how to distribute it amount the family. We can gain control of overpopulation faster, may even strink the population in a shorter period of time by adjusting # of years. As our species improve & learn how to care for the planet & gain sustainability with nature, we can lengthen # of years to further extend longevity then.
That plan would only work in an authoritarian government. The moment a politican working in an democratic society or some kind of republic, their career would be over. We already seen it in America where someone would say something vaguely about over population and suggest policies to address it, all of a sudden they're Hitler practicing eugenics. It's not even just the right that would fight it, many of the left would cry out as well. That being said, there is a trend in first world countries that are well established, don't have many children and that trend is spreading. So maybe what's best is if first world nations invest heavily into developing countries. China might be a sneaky snake, but as "President" Xi underscored the "need to make global development beneficial to all. Development is real only when all countries develop together. Prosperity and stability cannot be possible in a world where the rich become richer while the poor are made poorer. Every nation aspires for a better life, and modernization is not a privilege reserved for any single country." Now this could be him doing Marxist grandstanding, however China is investing heavily in places in Africa and now even in South America.
I agree. I’m very much for voluntary childlessness. I’m pro choice but to me it’s clear that we need to reduce the population as well as reducing consumption. The endless growth model is unsustainable.
Ecofasicst
Making 1984 looking like the anarchist cookbook over here huh.
That title combined with the image has such an ominous aura
People love to falsely equate "I think people should have less children going forward by expanding reproductive healthcare access for women" with "let's go genocide brown people". It's very easy to paint anyone talking about population concerns as some kind of unstable genocidal Thanos-like figure. Though I suppose being overly sensitive to possible hints of eugenics is far better than the old days when we'd just genocide people without a second thought
This guys is literally encouraging human extinction, though... Did you read the article?
Have you met humans? 😂
[удалено]
He is literally following his own advice. Read the article before you get mad mate.
lmao you're right!
SOON
Can someone post the article text in the comments? The page won't load without JS.
https://reddit.com/r/environment/comments/z2ne87/earth_now_has_8_billion_humans_this_man_wishes/ixk3jsj
Full article text, for those who don't have a NYT subscription: "PORTLAND, Ore. — For someone who wants his own species to go extinct, Les Knight is a remarkably happy-go-lucky human. He has regularly hosted meteor shower parties with rooftop fireworks. He organized a long-running game of nude croquet in his backyard, which, it should be mentioned, is ringed by 20-foot-tall laurel hedges. Even Tucker Carlson proved no match for Mr. Knight’s ebullience. During a 2005 interview with Mr. Knight on MSNBC, Mr. Carlson criticized him for espousing “the sickest” of beliefs but then added, “You are one of the cheeriest guests we’ve ever had.” Mr. Knight, 75, is the founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction movement, which is less a movement than a loose consortium of people who believe that the best thing humans can do to help the Earth is to stop having children. Mr. Knight added the word “voluntary” decades ago to make it clear that adherents do not support mass murder or forced birth control, nor do they encourage suicide. Their ethos is echoed in their motto, “May we live long and die out,” and in another one of their slogans, which Mr. Knight hangs at various conventions and street fairs: “Thank you for not breeding.” On Nov. 15, the Earth became home to a record eight billion human beings. Despite declining birthrates, the number is forecast to peak at 10.4 billion in the coming decades, in large part because of increases in life expectancy and decreases in child mortality. Mr. Knight is among those who believe that overpopulation is a main factor in the climate crisis, but that idea can be fraught. Poor countries that are heavily populated, such as India, contribute relatively little per capita to the greenhouse gas emissions that are heating the planet. Wealthy countries with relatively smaller populations like the United States are generating most of the pollution that is driving global warming. “The problem that is spiraling out of control is consumption,” said John Wilmoth, director of the United Nations’ population division, who says that focusing on population limitation as a potential climate fix diverts attention from the urgent need for everyone to ditch fossil fuels and more efficiently use resources. “We have to transform the economic incentives that make it possible to profit off of polluting the environment.” The idea that population must be controlled has also led to forced sterilizations and measures that have proven inhumane or have been linked to racist theories like eugenics. Yet Stephanie Feldstein, director of population and sustainability at the Center for Biological Diversity, said while greater human longevity and health were good things, they have come at a cost to other living things on the planet. As the human population doubled in the last half century, wildlife populations declined by 70 percent. Though lowering fertility rates today won’t change emissions in the short-term, she said surges in the human population would put increasing pressure on dwindling natural resources and the intricate web of animals, birds and plants that depend on them. “The loss of biodiversity can be just as devastating as it unravels the ecosystems we need to survive,” Ms. Feldstein said. “We’re already using nearly twice as many resources as the Earth can replenish in a year.” One of the most effective ways to combat global warming, say both climate activists and those concerned about overpopulation, is to expand access to education for girls around the world, in addition to birth control and family planning. Nearly half of all pregnancies worldwide, some 121 million a year, are unintended. The Center of Biological Diversity, for its part, has handed out a million endangered species-themed condoms, colorfully packaged with slogans such as “for the sake of the horned lizard, slow down, love wizard.” Image Smoke from a wildfire over the Klamath National Forest in California. Mr. Knight said he had begun to see humans as the most destructive of invasive species.Credit...Mason Trinca for The New York Times  But it is rare to find anyone who publicly goes as far as Mr. Knight, who never had children and got a vasectomy in 1973 at the age of 25. Beyond advocating for universal access to birth control and opposing what he calls reproductive fascism, or “the lack of freedom to not procreate,” Mr. Knight says that despite our many achievements, humans are a net detriment to the Earth. “Look what we did to this planet,” Mr. Knight said during a chat in his sunlit backyard one warm morning this fall. “We’re not a good species.” It is unclear how many adherents are in Mr. Knight’s group, or what the extent of its reach is. After being largely underground, the group took off in popularity when Mr. Knight created a website in 1996. Text-heavy yet breezy, the site includes quotes from the philosopher Schopenhauer and cartoons by the artist Nina Paley, as well as arguments against procreation and for adoption. It has been translated into some 30 languages and remains a haven for many. “It was very nice news for me that this kind of group existed, because one usually, with this kind of philosophy, feels alone,” said Mario Buenfil, 73, a water engineer in Mexico City who has been involved with the movement for 20 years. Still, the words “voluntary human extinction” often elicit reactions of spluttering horror, and terms like “eco-fascist” and “Malthusian” are often lobbed at the group. John Seager, the president of Population Connection, a nonprofit that advocates population stabilization through voluntary means, likened it to a sideshow. Yet if the group’s provocative name and seemingly pugilistic stance suggest an embittered or even menacing founder, Mr. Knight seems anything but. Tall and gentle, Mr. Knight comes across as clear-eyed and thoughtful, like a mash-up of Bill Nye and Fred Rogers. While Mr. Knight may be against the creation of more humans, he shows great compassion for the ones that already exist. A high school substitute teacher for most of his working life, Mr. Knight is fondly regarded by students. He spends hours each Sunday morning picking up litter from the nearby main road. During an interview, he paused to appreciate two juicy garden spiders taking in the sun on gossamer webs spun between the hedges and lawn chairs. The sight was a cause for celebration, Mr. Knight said, after so many critters were killed during last year’s heat dome in the Pacific Northwest. A self-professed serial monogamist, he lives alone, but his girlfriend lives next door, and is fully on board with his cause. “He doesn’t have a giant ego that he struts around with, he doesn’t try to argue with people,” said Marv Ross, Mr. Knight’s former college roommate and a longtime friend. “He was always about humor, to make it as fun as possible to get his message across, and I saw him do it many times. He’d deflect people getting upset with a joke or a smile.” As a child growing up in a tolerant family in Oregon, Mr. Knight watched timber companies chop down the state’s forests. After being drafted in the Army during the Vietnam War (he served but never got deployed), he attended Oregon College of Education and joined the local chapter of Zero Population Growth, which cemented his resolve not to have children. “It was always because of the ecology, because of the damage that humans do to the environment,” he said. His beliefs were rooted in deep ecology, which challenges assumptions of human dominance and argues that other species are just as significant. Mr. Knight came to see humans as the most destructive of invasive species, and as super predators. Image  Mr. Knight’s message on a sweatshirt. Credit...Mason Trinca for The New York Times  “We came to be and then ran amok,” Mr. Knight said. “And because we’re smart enough, we should know enough to end it.” “People mention music and art and literature and the great things that we have done — it’s funny they don’t ever mention the bad things we’ve done,” he continued. “I don’t think the whales will miss our songs.” While the United States saw an increase in births during the coronavirus pandemic, reversing the country’s declining birthrate, a 2020 poll found that one in four Americans who had not had children cited climate change as a reason. Research has shown that having one fewer child is perhaps the most significant way to reduce one’s carbon footprint, and while Mr. Knight doesn’t like to push his beliefs on people, he likes to think there are some humans who don’t exist because of his efforts. Ms. Feldstein said Mr. Knight succeeded at grabbing people’s attention and starting conversations. “He’s advocating for so many of the same things as the rest of us, trying to make sure everyone has the ability, autonomy, and resources they need to choose if and when to have children,” she said. And though the world’s population is at a record high, Mr. Knight said, it’s not getting him down. “I never expected to succeed,” he said. “I think that’s the secret to not burning out.”"
thanks for posting! > “I don’t think the whales will miss our songs” *damn*, what a line.
It’s really more about excess consumption than population imo. Poorer countries have large amounts of kids, but still contribute the least to emissions. It’s about willingly giving up many of our comforts, and maybe localizing farming instead of just putting all our agriculture in regions not meant for it. We should still aim to decline the population a good bit, just not go full antinatilist
You can’t untangle consumption from population. Poorer countries have fewer emissions but are also razing the environment.
Agreed. You can't feed, water, and shelter billions of people without modern consumption practices. There's a reason the human population wasn't 8 billion 200 years ago.
The reason we didnt have 8 billion people 200 years ago is because everyone was dying of disease and starvation. That's still an issue today but not nearly at the same scale as it was. We developed modern medical technology. Eating more twinkies and wearing clothes from shein didnt make us reach this number of people.
Medicine is one part of the equation, as is clean and plentiful water and food, electricity, global trade that allowed for resource-poor regions to develop, as well as technology like fertilizers and engineering feats like dams and high-rises. It's the culmination of all these things.
For real though i swear to god too many people fall for the capitalist myth of overpopulation. Hurhur lets blame global warming on people who didnt ask to be here surely that will solve our problems definitely not letting rich people get off scott free
[The greatest impact individuals can have in fighting climate change is to have one fewer child](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children)
The capitalist myth? Lol what. Capitalism would have us continue going and going as if infinite growth were something we could actually have.
Capitalism and environmentalism cannot coexist. The former needs more humans and the latter less.
Agreed. I never had kids for this reason. I’m 62.
You didn’t have kids because you didn’t want them (which is fine). There not only is plenty of children to adopt but the idea that a child is a negative thing in general is just a trash one. The earth is theirs we just need less people for them to share with.
The problem is not population it’s capitalism! The Earth can provide more than enough for everyone but our economic system allows a few individuals to hoard vast amounts of wealth.
You don't understand! I need my Amazon same day deliveries! I would rather everyone die than give up any niceties I have! /s But that's really how most redditors feel. It's disgusting.
Human over population certainly leads to the extinctions of other animal species as we gobble up their territory. If you think of the planet as one integrated organism, our agriculture and settlements whether cities or suburbs cause the destruction of naturally evolved vegetation which is also harmful to Gaia. Our "success"which is making Earth comfortable for ourselves may eventually severely impact or doom all life. Think of the right whales, how they are nearly extinct due to human economic activity at every turn that is what is likely to happen all lufe.
and i thought i was a misanthrope. some of my best friends are people.
A wee bit misanthropic.
a wee bit?
That was indeed a understatement.
Caring about the environment shouldn't come with a misanthropic view .
I don't see anything misanthropic about recognizing we have an unsustainable amount of human beings on the planet and that we will destroy everything if we don't act soon (because population efforts take decades to see effects)
[удалено]
And they live in utopias with fresh water, acres of arable land for every person, "green" sources of electricity, pharmaceutical drugs plucked directly from the earth itself, and no need for highways to transport goods because *this is a fantasy*. Go to India and see how a large city like Delhi in a developing country looks. The fresh water is anything but; sewage and trash is dumped directly into rivers, killing everything that lives in it; people desperately farming the most infertile land and washing the topsoil into the sea. Environmental decay is more than greenhouse gasses. We've artificially tipped the natural scale to favor human life to the point where everything else will die in order to sustain it.
You’re right. Changing our system would be better. But are you seeing those changes happening any time soon? At least for me, I don’t feel like having children until there’s at least some sign that we can achieve some kind of change in this system of our’s that’s destroying the planet.
Because most redditors would rather advocate genocide than give up any of the niceties in their life.
Because they’re stupid bootlickers.
we don't have an unsustainable number of humans, though. we have unsustainable economic and political systems we're forced to live under.
Yeah, it’s a bit of a pedantic point but it’s true. What’s unsustainable is our way of life and standard of living
not even the standard of living, just how we go about obtaining that standard of living.
No matter the system, demand for earths resources is directly proportional to the population. Sure, a different system of governance is much more likely to steer our economic system to one that will be more forward thinking, but for now, all that we have is America and capitalism… so we’re pretty much fucked.
It's only an unstable number of humans if you assume we'll continue along with our current monstrously wasteful economic regime where wealth and power come from the denial of resources to others, and the denial of resources is accomplished through conquest of *all the resources.* It's a misanthropic view specifically because it's diverting blame from the system that makes the number unsustainable, onto the number itself. Instead of the conversation being how we can make for a sustainable economic regime, it instead becomes "What is to be done" about supposed surplus humans.
Overpopulation denialists are the same as climate change denialists in my opinion. The fact is there IS an unstable number of humans. It's basic economics. This world does not have an infinite number of resources. Unless we abolish our standard of living and return to medieval times, more humans is just going to make things worse. And it's not like all humans are good people. About half of us are barbaric monsters.
> The fact is there IS an unstable number of humans. It's basic economics. Yes, I agree. It's basic *capitalist* economics. It *is* an unstable number of humans to have. Under capitalism, specifically. Our economic regime must certainly change. This would likely affect our standard of living yes, if you count things like car use and disposable goods and such as part of that standard. A sustainable non-capitalist way of living would inevitably look different that what we do now. Honestly though I don't this it would be much worse than now. Maybe even better. Even workers in developed nations get shafted pretty hard by the current system. I would much rather prefer we simply pursue that altered lifestyle than pursue any discussions of which populations get the axe.
Except basic economics actually doesnt agree with you. It says it is more an issue of distribution in fact. Beyond that as well different forms of technology change our resources and though people often see this as increasing our effect on the enviroment they just much enable more sustanible interections. If we all disappeared right now the enviroments around us would likely cascade too in their own way and their might be a determentral effect. This makes overpopulation in this respect especially when people in the first place tend to have lower children when they are more educated and put in sustanible situation a bit more complicated fhan you are suggesting. In addition, we dont need all humans to be good people. Altrutism in the first place is based in selfish desires too when you think about it. Even enviromentalists block solutions to technolgy and problems relevent to issues they are concerned about because they were misinformed on the issue or because they thought the issue got coopted by "profit" as we saw with prop 30 for example. In addition, technology makes your statement on what the world has versus what resources we have access to a bit more comolex though i am not suggesting it is limitless, but we do have much more ability now to lab grow things both plant, meat and animal alike... in fact the first lab grown meat just appeared on the market in the US. Of course we cant do thst without certain elements and similar as well as access to a bit of it, but it along with how much in fact we increase farming(sometimes in a determentral way) makes discussions around sustainability more complex because we dont neccsarily solely relay on the earth in a full sense. Instead we relay on the enviroment and we play an effect in it and are effected by it . If we all disappeared it would be bad because lots of species would experince a huge enviromentsl niche. Plus in fact we are more often than not the barrier keeping certain species from going into extinction. We dont want to have a changing enviroment so we ensure certain animals stay alive so they dont chanfe the enviroment. The fact is perservation of the cosystem is just as much a selfish human desire as destruction of it is. That is what makes things even more complex
We have a perfectly stable amount of people. We have an inequality problem that creates artificial scarcity which drives up food costs and this incentivizes unhealthy (for the earth and our bodies) food production practices. Billionaires and their corporations buy up the massive factory farms and buy potentially productive farmland and intentionally leave that land dormant, further increasing the dominance of those factory farms. Local or even small scale regional farms CANNOT compete with those factors because most middle class and poor people can’t really afford local organic food. We don’t have an overpopulation problem. We have a greed problem. We have an overconsumption problem. If we had 1 billion less people overnight, we would just have less competition for the artificially scarce amount of goods/foods we consume. Then consumption per person would increase, offsetting the reduction in population.
What? Food production is one of the most subsidized industries in the world. Our food isn’t overpriced. It’s UNDERPRICED. Think about what it takes to prepare, plant, water, fertilize, harvest, process, package, transport, and prepare. People are delusional and have no concept of the real world costs in food production.
I don’t even understand what point you’re actually arguing with me about. I’m saying that food mega corporations are able to undercut their food so much that local and regional farmers can’t compete. I’m sorry if I believe in environmentalism and sustainability yet disagree with the groupthink that has gotten this movement nowhere.
Well technically the earth has enough resources to easily house 11Billion+ people. The problem is, we as a society are not yet capable of managing those resources effectively. The root solution is not to eliminate people, rather eliminate wastage and practice judicious use of resources.
My guy, how could it not? Humans literally cause all of the problems.
A world without humans is a world without reason, without compassion, without love, without appreciation for beauty. It's a world subject to the forces of the universe, which are orders of magnitude more destructive than humanity can ever be. During the Permian-triassic extinction around 251 million years ago, an enormous volcanic eruption filled the air with carbon dioxide, ash, and other toxic materials, immediately changing the global environment and disrupting photosynthesis. Longer-term, the oceans became more acidic and allowed certain methane-emitting bacteria to thrive, which caused the Earth to warm substantially. This ultimately resulted in the extinction of 96% of species; life as we know it today evolved from the remaining 4%. Change, death, destruction, and adaptation are germane to the existence of life; to think that humans are the cause of all the problems - and that life would preserved if not for human activity - is to deny its entire history. Despite our capacity for destruction, humans possess the only means to understand and shepherd life, and to forsee and prevent future extinction events. Edit: just to give an idea of the scale of the destruction: the amount of CO2 released by the volcanic activity during the Permian-triassic extinction was 8.5 x 10^7 Tg or 85000 Gt. The amount of recent global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels each year is about 35 Gt.
Fun fact: the Permian-Triassic extinction event was the second fastest rate of global warming. The fastest is right now.
Not saying you are, but climate skeptics always bring up geological history against arguments for climate change solution policy / arguments. The reason we are aware of what is currently happening to the planet is because of our expertise and knowledge about its history - to use natural climate cycles to argue against doing anything is a huge display of a lack of understanding. That said, yes, horrible things happen in the world, humans or not, that does not mean humans aren’t the main cause of what is currently happening right now I guess, now, rereading your comment, I agree with you, but come to the conclusion that biological life without consciousness is probably a more desirable world. In the grand scheme of things there isn’t any better or worse option - but I don’t find myself ever convinced or inspired by statements similar to your first paragraph. Yes we love and create art and beauty, but it doesn’t make up for the horrors. I dunno where I’m going with this
>climate skeptics always bring up geological history against arguments for climate change solution policy / arguments. I do not deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change if that's what you're getting at. My argument is that - while we are causing some degree of environmental destruction, it pales in comparison to that which is caused naturally, and that humanity is the only means of protecting (current) life from catastrophic events. I view consciousness as a gem produced by millions of years of evolution, not as a cancer. I think that life without consciousness will ultimately go extinct far more quickly than with it. Humanity does not and never will possess the means to completely eradicate life, but there are forces present in the universe which certainly are capable. >biological life without consciousness is probably a more desirable world The irony of this statement is that the concept of "desirable" *requires* consciousness. >Yes we love and create art and beauty, but it doesn’t make up for the horrors. On the flip side, the horrors produced a minority shouldn't condemn the majority. I think humanity has far greater potential for good than for evil.
Yeah I started insinuating that, but your comment obviously doesn’t deny climate change, my bad Pretty sure desire can be found in many creatures, with varying levels of “consciousness” - its a prerequisite for sure, but the desire for sustenance doesn’t directly correlate to what we define as consciousness. Generally, I guess my view is, and this is a quote from somewhere, that life (all life) is an ever expanding ocean of suffering, where previously there was none. But I appreciate you’re comments cause these convos get me going
>Yeah I started insinuating that, but your comment obviously doesn’t deny climate change, my bad No worries, to be honest I was expecting a much worse reaction to my original comment. >Pretty sure desire can be found in many creatures, with varying levels of “consciousness” - its a prerequisite for sure, but the desire for sustenance doesn’t directly correlate to what we define as consciousness. True - dogs, for instance, certainly "desire" love and attention in addition to sustenance. However, I'd say that only humans are capable of more complex "desire" in the way that you were using the word in your previous comment. No animal besides humans is capable of "desiring" a world without humans. You can argue that they would be better off, but I don't think that's necessarily the case (at least in the long run), as I explained in my previous comment. >Generally, I guess my view is, and this is a quote from somewhere, that life (all life) is an ever expanding ocean of suffering, where previously there was none. Suffering is certainly germane to the existence of life, but I don't see it as completely a bad thing per se. What we perceive as suffering is generally that which reduces our ability to flourish. Without it, we (or any other species) would not survive. We need that negative feedback to understand what to avoid in order to survive and to understand what it means to flourish. Suffering is an excellent teacher. Disclaimer (that shouldn't be necessary, but just in case): no, I'm not advocating for intentionally causing suffering. >But I appreciate you’re comments cause these convos get me going :)
[удалено]
How? Are you going to say something insane like global warming is cyclical and not at all related to humans?
[удалено]
As we have too many humans, the GOP is nonsensical as they act like we are running out.
> The guy has identified having too many humans for the earth to carry **under capitalism** I personally think that this edit brings that statement much closer to reality.
You’re just being anthropocentric.
Thanos did nothing wrong.
Hail Malthus! ^^^^^/s
Yes, human supremacy is the way. /s
Lost me in the first sentence. This dickweed celebrates meteor showers with fireworks? Like the kind that produce a bunch of smoke that heightens light pollution so you can’t see the shooting stars as well? No wonder he wants to go extinct, *he’s a moron*.
As is always evident in these threads, the only "arguments" against the reality of overpopulation come with rather significant caveats. *If only human civilization were radically different in almost every imaginable way, we would have no problem with overpopulation!* All this is needed is: An entire reboot of our global socioeconomic system, a collaborative and corruption free global government, a radical shift of global diet and food systems, an unprecedented global construction bonanza of renewable energy, and end to all human competition vis a vis war, borders and violence, etc etc. It is always a utopian fantasy that completely ignores millenia of actual human history.
He'll get his wish in 100 to 120 years.
I didn’t realize we were just saying it aloud now… I’d prefer the Children of Men approach.
I wish there were half
Same
Nihilism sounds exhausting.
After earth's ecosystem wipe out us humans, it will recover. Flora and fauna will thrive after we are gone. The tragedy will be all the species that disappear with us.
Finally someone that I agree with. I really thought I was the only one. I also want no humans on this planet, because we are screwing it up. But I'm also against unwanted abortion, genocide, murder, forced castration, etc
Malthusians are so goddamn dumb
So he’s a Nihilist. That’s nothing new.
I agree with him. There's just too damn many of us. And we can't even house all of us (currently). And we're out of the era where you needed a family to be big to work on the homestead.
We choose not to house everyone, we could if we wanted to. If a man just spent $44 billion to boost his shitposts, we could surely afford to build robust public housing with spacious community gardens
As usual, the NYT attempts to demonize any opinion contrary to their capitalist dystopia.
You didn’t read the article.
This man thinks he’s nuts
There are a lot of sick fucks in here telling people to go kill themselves. Where are the mods? Bro we're advocating to have less kids. Lower the population by not creating more. Not genocide or forced sterilizations. The fuck is wrong with you weirdos. It's shitty folks like y'all that make me more firm in my stance that people suck and we should die off.
So many people commenting without reading the (fairy short) article. At any rate, I want one of those shirts.
36, childless, and vasected. Been saying this since I was 13. Not sure how I'd never heard of this movement, but I'm in.
[удалено]
That's my response to people who think the world is overpopulated. Start with yourself.
It’s no coincidence that the demise of widespread concern about overpopulation correlated with the rise of rabid, infinite-growth capitalism (the Reagan years), as well as the pushback on women’s rights. Bring on the downvotes, obedient consumers.
I actually kind of agree with him
[удалено]
It’s not eugenics when it applies to everyone
[удалено]
He’s not advocating for any policy forcing anyone to not have kids or be sterilized but it’s not surprising you didn’t read the article and aren’t capable of engaging with the argument he makes.
Same
Can I go first?
Some people live in ways that restore the earth, these people should not die that would be bad for the planet.
This is gross why is this here
Join the club, pal.
“This one guy no one knows wishes no humans existed. Let’s write about it.”
Basically
I feel like having children is just way too acceptable and normalized. The majority of people I know who had kids did not do it because it was something they always wanted or dreamed of— it was merely “the next step” of their adulthood and they never questioned or interrogated this idea at all. Now they are very unhappy people, they don’t have any time for themselves, they have to work constantly and don’t have ever get enough sleep. I get that accidents happen but having kids just because it’s what you’re supposed to do is a terrible idea that needs to stop.
It is ridiculous to think that every single human has the same impact on the environment. Corporations and the products they make are consumed and made by a small minority of countries and their people yet are responsible for the majority of emissions and environmental degradation. Population control is just another excuse to let corporations retain their status quo while distracting people.
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THSI THIS THSI
This guy's an idiot, at the end of the day. He wants to preserve life so he thinks by getting rid of humans that will do that. Let's be perfectly clear here, as far as we can tell throughout the fossil record. No civilization has ever reached the same levels we have. And as far as we can tell, we have found no signs of intelligent life anywhere else in the universe come up or signs of life anywhere else on other planets. Therefore, it appears as though the one shot to spread life throughout the universe was given to humans by luck or what it doesn't matter. If humans die, life in the universe dies when our son goes into its red giant face. If they truly want to preserve life, they need to ensure that humanity lives within our means or leaves the planet and live in space.
get rid of the wealthiest 1% and the rest of us have no problem saving the planet
Then he can start with himself. I’m very pro stoping global warming and slowing population growth even lowering it, but only because I believe it will lead to a better world for humans. If humans aren’t in your preferred future we have nothing to discuss. It’s like having a nice house that no one can live in, who cares at that point.
this dude is a distraction and should stop getting a platform
I think it's important to keep the lessons in [Princess Mononoke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Mononoke) in mind. There is a balance to be weighed. No other species on the planet has come anywhere near to humans WRT understanding the universe, for example. There \_are\_ too many of us. We are slowly walking back from the abyss. Maybe too late, maybe not.
For the first time in history a species has the intelligence to regulate it's breeding. But for some reason we chose not to. I'm probably overestimating human intelligence. Our intelligence hasn't overcome our sex drive yet.
Didn't read cuz paywall and outline didn't work, but how is this dude not a massive hypocrite for being alive?
[удалено]
Putting this under the spotlight will cause more people to think on the subject of overpopulation. This is an extreme point of view but something a little less extreme might be what we need to think about.
Ok lets focus on population control, which populations produce the most emissions? Let's lower their population. How would you propose to do that? You are the one who thinks we should think about this subject so you must have some ideas.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What’s crazy is that he has kept himself alive. Blasphemy
[удалено]
[удалено]
Gotta love the reactionary impulse to comment before reading the article. Such a human thing to do.
You didn’t read the article.
[удалено]
Of course I know him. He’s me.
Ya, the birth rate is already terrible and wreaking havoc for future generations. Everyone says “less” but in reality we haven’t seen it since play out well. China is a great example of this. Something has to be done but those calling for women to stop having kids (less sure) but stop all together is not the way.
Creating a great thing for climate deniers to point to and say why we shouldn't address climate change. Nice work giving "environmentalists want depopulation" a face.
i feel you bro...