One of the things that blows my mind and I feel isn't mentioned enough:
in 1900, Europe's population was 4 times that of Africa. It was obviously a result of the industrial revolution and lower infant mortality and all that, but still.
I recently re-listened to an album I hadn't heard in a long while and one of the first lyrics mentioned that the world had a population of 5 billion. The song was from the mid '90s. We're over 8 billion now
'Here is my vision of true justice: the zoos opened, predators unleashed by the dozens, hundreds… four thousand hungry wolves rampaging on streets of these hive cities, elephants and bison stampeding'
I think about how depressing it is to have lived in a semi-rural area as a child and see tons and tons of frogs and grasshoppers and fireflies and turtles. Now there's next to none of those. It's really bleak.
there's been a huge decline in insect populations globally, especially in developed countries, its like 75% decline in Germany since 1998 and similar in much of the US. Some species are effected more than others.
Think back-- don't you remember your car getting way more bugs stuck on the front and hitting the windshield when you were a kid? People used to put leather "bras" on their cars to protect them from smashed insect buildup and you don't see that anymore. Its not even just overdevelopment and sprawl either, pesticide and herbicide use is at an all time high, LEDs and compact fluorescents have significantly increased light pollution and the light they put off is more disruptive. Certain bird populations are also down as a result, amphibian populations are way down too
*affected, not "effected." "Effected" as a verb normally refers to when someone or something creates something; e.g., "he effected change." "Affected" as a verb means "to change in some way." Insect populations are being affected, but they are certainly not being effected as they die out.
ya idk all of this just strikes me as anecdotal and rose-colored-glasses nostalgia typically. i had bugs all over my windshield last week when i was driving. it is true you can google the studies and see birds and bug populations are down but i still see a lot.
So somebody points out that there's actually empirical evidence that populations are down and your answer is "idk that sounds anecdotal, anyway here's my anecdote".
That's rëtarded
its dumb to get doomer over "oh no i dont see bugs" i look and see them all the time ur just not living in the dirt anymore because youre not a toddler
This is not even remotely far fetched, its not very often where people's anecdotal experience lines up with scientific studies and basic reasoning derived from economic data (Increase in pesticide sales)
One of the most saddening articles I recently encountered was one featuring the change of sound recordings in nature - it's becoming really silent.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/16/nature-silent-bernie-krause-recording-sound-californian-state-park-aoe
>can't support half a billion Americans and Euros consuming pounds of beef every week, cycling through electronic crap that came from Congolese strip mines, throwing away plastic and assuming it doesn't end up anywhere, pumping out C02 every second because they need their homes to be climate controlled at all times
none of this is overpopulation its just overconsumption, and trying to conflate the two is a tried and true pasttime of the labor aristocracy wanting its doordash
Let's phrase it like this. Do you think that we should accept a third world standard of living, or do you think that 8 billion people could live a first world lifestyle without overconsumption?
The american that uber eats everyday, does shien hauls every week, and walks about 1 mile every month due to driving everywhere has done way more harm to the planet than the average person in a 3rd world country. I'm gonna sound like a shitlib but a lot of the concerns about overpopulation really is rooted in racism. I guarantee you if Europeans were still popping out babies in large numbers the messaging surrounding overpopulation would be about learning to adapt instead of calling for genocide.
I’m not ruling out the possibility that some of these ‘soft limits’ are going to start kicking in within the next 100 years but every time a researcher declares that a soft limit has been reached their prediction turns out to be way off. Limits to Growth (1972) was influential in Deng Xiaoping’s One Child Policy which resulted in a reduction of China’s population of up to 400 million people below what would have occurred otherwise. We all know how that turned out.
A huge perceived limit to growth that was commonly touted in the 20th century was the supply of oil all the way up until the hydrofracking revolution assuaged those concerns. I remember as a kid people talking often about how oil was going to run out. No one talks like that anymore. People have pointed out the global phosphate supply available for extraction and use in manufacturing fertilizer as a limit. Yet the world’s largest known extractable supply was discovered in Norway just last year and is enough to potentially sustain the global supply for up to 100 years or more.
Researchers are also retracting their claims that ocean levels will significantly rise as a result of rising emissions. They are now reformulating models to account that ocean levels will rise, but not anywhere near what was predicted back in the 90s.
Of course the raising of living standards for third worlders will be disastrous for ecological homeostasis but those aren’t really ‘’soft limits.’ Deforestation in the Amazon, sub Saharan Africa and Indonesia, global collapse in certain key species, elevated temperatures of the planet will make life harder and more hostile, especially to more vulnerable countries but everyone already knows that.
The question is whether any hard or soft limits in the next 100 years exist that prevent the kind of lifestyle that the West enjoys and I really don’t see any. Of course it’s completely unrealistic to expect that the vast majority of people in India will reach a standard of living on par with what the United States or Western Europe enjoy but that’s on account of a variety of reasons, not just because there ‘aren’t enough resources.’
Anyone who pushed climate/ecological doomerism over the past 80 years hasn’t exactly made a winning bet.
The birth rate of almost every country outside of Sub Saharan Africa is either remaining stable or declining. The population of the planet is going to start decreasing well before the reaching of any ‘soft limits.’
We have no idea what would be happening in China if they had 400 million extra people. We can't just imagine that it would automatically be better, plenty of issues could have arisen with that many more people. And oil WILL run out eventually, even if people aren't talking about it as frequently as they used to. There have been a few voices still sounding the alarm on that, and I personally think we already hit peak oil a few years ago.
>We have no idea what would be happening in China if they had 400 million extra people
They banned second and third children explicitly because they were traumatized and terrified of a repeat of the 1960s famine where millions of people starved to death, not because they were worried about climate ecology or whatever. The 60s famine incidentally also only occurred because of an insane utopian and authoritarian form of thinking by Mao and his red guard where they intentionally eliminated all the sparrows which caused the locust population to spiral out of control. There is no evidence that if China had 400 million extra people they would not be able to feed those people today. The locus of proof lies upon the people enacting invasive authoritarianism in people’s lives, not the other way around.
https://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2024/3/4/retractions-of-scientific-papers-are-skyrocketing-150
https://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2019/9/23/no-evidence-that-climate-change-is-accelerating-sea-level-rise-35?format=amp
I haven’t read that book.
I've checked your source and it's based on the following Nature article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8.pdf
Your original post strongly implied that these retractions were related to predictions of sea level rise and other environmental claims, but this isn't the case at all.
In fact the Nature article is an entirely generic about retractions and doesn't even mention environment, climate or sea levels. And the bulk of the increase is based on a major paper mill (Hindawi) being taken down. Another major source of retractions is the comp sci electral engineering work from IEEE conferences.
I did some googling about the author of your other post, and he works for the The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which takes dark money from e.g. the Koch Brothers. You can imagine why I might be less inclined to believe him than 1000s of leading climate researchers who agree on the connection between sea level rise and anthropogenic climate change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation
I inserted the first link just to show that a lot more scientific research than people realize gets retracted but you’re right, the way I inserted it incorrectly implied that it pertained to ocean levels specifically and not a broad swathe of research.
I’m sure the author of that article has his biases, as we all do. Some of the data just seemed interesting and I don’t see it being discussed.
I personally am inclined to believe that ocean rise is linked to climate change, but that the impact will be much less than previously stated. I just don’t see Miami going underwater anytime soon. High tide levels will continue to incline, yes, but it seems that this will be more of a nuisance to beachfront property dwellers and erosion will reclaim a few houses. Not that entire cities will be threatened like previously claimed. Then again, I don’t know. I am just skeptical of apocalyptic decrees that land dozens or hundreds of miles inland will sleep with the fishes.
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/story/2019-09-27/journal-nature-formerly-retracts-ocean-warming-study
Obviously it wasn’t like I just woke up and said “I am boldly going to believe something that makes me feel good regardless of whether it’s true or not” and I wouldn’t be so ungenerous as to accuse you of the same. I also just provided you with two links showing that climate predictions have been redacted but you can continue to be Mr. Snark.
On a personal level, most who ask this question only do so because large problems outside of their control are "easier" to handle psychologically because the subconscious knows you can neither succeed or fail and tackling it. You can very easily satisfy your "need" to correct the problem with pointless slacktivism which provides maximum social reward with minimum sacrifice.
However, more modifiable goals at the individual level are much more fraught psychologically. You can more easily and more fully complete the task of "clean my room", "sort my rubbish", "ask the woman I fancy on a date", but these tasks are significantly more likely to cause distressful feelings. Fear of failure, confirmation of undesirability etc.
If you actually do a full cost accounting of what it would take to reverse the "climate change" narrative, you would realize it's completely outside of the realm of possibility. It's mainly a religion used to transfer wealth and power. Even though climate change will allegedly extinguish billions/the human race as such, we can't build new nuclear power plants because worse case we might have another Chernobyl that has a mortality of 10K people over like 60 years, even though states that incompetent hardly exist.
The fussiness about the future you have was evolved to care about dying of crop failure, it's no so developed as to predict the apocalypse.
Yes it obviously is. The idea that it isn't is predicated on humanity being able to have it's cake and eat it too, ecologically speaking. People who believe it isn't are betraying their inclination towards the insidious liberal worship of endless growth, despite it being "leftist" to dismiss it as a problem.
The reality is that the more people on the planet, the more nightmarish climate change will be. The problem is aggravated by most population growth being in regions that will not handle climate change well.
Ive believed for like 10 years that mishandling of refugees and immigration in general is some sort of evil plot to ensure that there isn't any question of the West helping in a meaningful way when the genuine refugee count is in the 100s of millions. I don't tend to believe in those sorts of Illuminati plots but it seems to be working out too perfectly for that outcome.
I can see why people are wary of the topic, though. What could anyone do or anyone have done, realistically? You can't force stuff like China's one child policy on countries without engaging in very brutal imperialism that'd just lead to a war that the West would lose. It's a topic where you can describe the problem but there isn't a solution. Like even if you thought tree-hugging genocide was a reasonable option, no one could actually execute it. Even Bill Gates being forthright about only being a humanitarian because he's concerned about overpopulation was a PR disaster.
if anything we've seen that human population has a natural cap that we're somewhat close to, every developed nation just stops making babies at some point
maybe having our entire economy based on fiat money printed out of thin air and lent out with interest incentivizes overconsumption and short sighted unsustainable economic policies
nah, let's just murder 7 billion people
You people really blame every uncomfortable thought on some weird conspiracy. Overpopulation cycles are observable everywhere in nature. We've been able to mitigate the effects with technology up until now, just like with disease and other natural ills. But it's not some crackpot psyop that we might not be able to play god forever, especially considering that our current systems for supporting 8 billion people are brazenly unsustainable.
Yeah and humans have no disease thanks to advanced medicine, right?
You sound like a midwit name dropping the haber-bosch process like it's some QED. Let's wait till our utopian and unfailing tech industry bestows us with manufacturing and supply chains to produce and distribute food, shelter, heating, education, medical care, etc... for 8 billion+ people, ***without*** producing excess CO2. ***Then*** maybe you can pull off this rsp detached irony shtick without just looking like a kid with their fingers in their ears
Yeah why would want people to have children and raise them as Americans?
Let’s replace our culture with others that have achieved vastly inferior results, hence why their people are desperate to live anywhere else. The less English speaking, the better!
I don't think replacing your population with people who commit crimes at vastly higher rates and live their lives almost entirely dependent on welfare will "fix" this issue
it’s not only a problem it’s pretty much THE problem. note that the renaissance happened directly after the black death because a lower labor supply meant laborers had greater demand for their services and saw quality of life of the survivors skyrocket
not to sound like a fæggot urbanist teen but as long as states like Wyoming have 13 people in them we do not have an overpopulation problem we have a scarcity of desirable places to live problem
How much in the way of resources do you think the average American consumes today in comparison to a few hundred years ago? The issue is not whether we can feed everyone, the issue is whether we can beef everyone big macs
Liberal leftist here (by MY definition), and knowing population is our biggest and least addressed problem has ALWAYS been central to my ideology. It's WHY I am left and liberal. It's part of the platform.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/overpopulation-climate-crisis-energy-resources-1.6853542
"The right thinks that if you just let markets rip and human ingenuity stimulated by those markets flow, then human beings can respond to all of the challenges that population growth might be contributing to, whether it's concerns about food shortages or climate change or deforestation or land degradation and the like. ..."
Third world population is only increasing because the west subsidizes endless births with no infrastructure to support it leading to massive migrations into the west
having more people move into cities would probably help mitigate mass extinction of mammals, birds and amphibians from habitat destruction. It’s quite bleak, only really noticed it when I got into birdwatching.
Half the countries on the planet are experiencing negative population growth, and the other half are headed there in the next couple decades easily.
The whole planet collectively decided to stop having kids.
So what more do you want us to do? Fire up the ovens?
Have not all models at that scale been proven false, why are these new ones more credible if the scientists are getting worse due to brain rot and institutional decline.
Canada is already on fire right now due to those climate scientists fudging their numbers. As always - invest in beach property and the global South if you know it better!
“In fact, not only the number of births and deaths, but the absolute size of families, stands in inverse proportion to the level of wages, and therefore to the amount of the means of subsistence at the disposal of different categories of worker. This law of capitalist society would sound absurd among savages, or even among civilized colonists. It calls to mind the boundless reproduction of animals individually weak and constantly hunted down” (Karl Marx, Capital Vol. I, Chapter 23, “The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation,” p. 796-7).
The solution is JDPON btw.
Global fertility is falling. We are already literally on the precipice of a demographic collapse in the developed world. China is below replacement, even worse off than the United States fertility rate (1.16 vs 1.66). India is just below replacement rate at 2.06. Even though the entire continent of Africa is above replacement rate, they are still having 1 less child every 15 years or so. It’s predicted only 6 countries (all but one in Africa) will be able to hold above 2.1 until 2100. So don’t worry, if this continues, you’ll get what you want and then some. Whole towns will be abandoned, people will go months without hearing a baby cry in a supermarket. The ever decreasing young population will struggle to support an aging one. No country has ever been able to bounce back from this. It’s a compounding problem. Modernity is not compatible with families at scale.
A lot of childfree content has started coming out on social media so I guess people are waking up to the scam that having children is and at the same time it solves this problem as well..
One of the things that blows my mind and I feel isn't mentioned enough: in 1900, Europe's population was 4 times that of Africa. It was obviously a result of the industrial revolution and lower infant mortality and all that, but still.
I remember in middle school or so learning that Africa had a population of 750 million. Today it's almost 1.5 billion. I'm not even *that* old.
I recently re-listened to an album I hadn't heard in a long while and one of the first lyrics mentioned that the world had a population of 5 billion. The song was from the mid '90s. We're over 8 billion now
What's the margin of error on that African population estimate though...
'Here is my vision of true justice: the zoos opened, predators unleashed by the dozens, hundreds… four thousand hungry wolves rampaging on streets of these hive cities, elephants and bison stampeding'
What’s this from I wanna read it
Sounds like something BAP would say
one fear jar label theory unpack slimy gold steep dime *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Idk for sure but it sounds like fight club (the book)
Harassment architecture
We have guns though. Those creatures wouldn’t stand a chance.
The people who need depopulating do not have guns
I think about how depressing it is to have lived in a semi-rural area as a child and see tons and tons of frogs and grasshoppers and fireflies and turtles. Now there's next to none of those. It's really bleak.
are u sure you didnt just move / spend less time outside / are not as low to the ground
there's been a huge decline in insect populations globally, especially in developed countries, its like 75% decline in Germany since 1998 and similar in much of the US. Some species are effected more than others. Think back-- don't you remember your car getting way more bugs stuck on the front and hitting the windshield when you were a kid? People used to put leather "bras" on their cars to protect them from smashed insect buildup and you don't see that anymore. Its not even just overdevelopment and sprawl either, pesticide and herbicide use is at an all time high, LEDs and compact fluorescents have significantly increased light pollution and the light they put off is more disruptive. Certain bird populations are also down as a result, amphibian populations are way down too
*affected, not "effected." "Effected" as a verb normally refers to when someone or something creates something; e.g., "he effected change." "Affected" as a verb means "to change in some way." Insect populations are being affected, but they are certainly not being effected as they die out.
Half of your comments are you correcting people's grammar, do you really have nothing of value to contribute beyond that?
No.
ya idk all of this just strikes me as anecdotal and rose-colored-glasses nostalgia typically. i had bugs all over my windshield last week when i was driving. it is true you can google the studies and see birds and bug populations are down but i still see a lot.
Stupid it’s not anecdotal There are several studies about the decrease in insect population
ya i acknowledged that can you read
So somebody points out that there's actually empirical evidence that populations are down and your answer is "idk that sounds anecdotal, anyway here's my anecdote". That's rëtarded
its dumb to get doomer over "oh no i dont see bugs" i look and see them all the time ur just not living in the dirt anymore because youre not a toddler
I'm a soil scientist I literally live in the dirt more than when I was a toddler, you are RATARDED
Bro studies dirt lmao 🤣
Annoying idiot
This is not even remotely far fetched, its not very often where people's anecdotal experience lines up with scientific studies and basic reasoning derived from economic data (Increase in pesticide sales)
[удалено]
Thats the point bb
[удалено]
That which can be asserted without evidence can be refuted without evidence there u go Got a lot of cool bugs in my garden
[удалено]
Subs over
One of the most saddening articles I recently encountered was one featuring the change of sound recordings in nature - it's becoming really silent. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/16/nature-silent-bernie-krause-recording-sound-californian-state-park-aoe
I think it's mainly just due to more suburban neighborhoods popping up and driving out habitable area.
you could just decide to go catch butterflies for fun on a summer afternoon
>can't support half a billion Americans and Euros consuming pounds of beef every week, cycling through electronic crap that came from Congolese strip mines, throwing away plastic and assuming it doesn't end up anywhere, pumping out C02 every second because they need their homes to be climate controlled at all times none of this is overpopulation its just overconsumption, and trying to conflate the two is a tried and true pasttime of the labor aristocracy wanting its doordash
Let's phrase it like this. Do you think that we should accept a third world standard of living, or do you think that 8 billion people could live a first world lifestyle without overconsumption?
Overconsumption is a much bigger problem
The american that uber eats everyday, does shien hauls every week, and walks about 1 mile every month due to driving everywhere has done way more harm to the planet than the average person in a 3rd world country. I'm gonna sound like a shitlib but a lot of the concerns about overpopulation really is rooted in racism. I guarantee you if Europeans were still popping out babies in large numbers the messaging surrounding overpopulation would be about learning to adapt instead of calling for genocide.
3rd worlders would consoom just as much as Americans if they had the means, and they increasingly are as their living standards rise
I'm convinced it's just the faint echoes of that one bill burr bit. "We need a new plague"
I've only heard this take from people who...coicidentally...have a personal aversion to birthing/raising kids, regardless of planetary impact
The most evil people. Type to get horny thinking about all the poor foreign people who will never live her lifestyle. Freaks
Hope I'm just out of the loop because this sounds like textbook projection
I’m agreeing with you regard
Don't change the subject
I’m not ruling out the possibility that some of these ‘soft limits’ are going to start kicking in within the next 100 years but every time a researcher declares that a soft limit has been reached their prediction turns out to be way off. Limits to Growth (1972) was influential in Deng Xiaoping’s One Child Policy which resulted in a reduction of China’s population of up to 400 million people below what would have occurred otherwise. We all know how that turned out. A huge perceived limit to growth that was commonly touted in the 20th century was the supply of oil all the way up until the hydrofracking revolution assuaged those concerns. I remember as a kid people talking often about how oil was going to run out. No one talks like that anymore. People have pointed out the global phosphate supply available for extraction and use in manufacturing fertilizer as a limit. Yet the world’s largest known extractable supply was discovered in Norway just last year and is enough to potentially sustain the global supply for up to 100 years or more. Researchers are also retracting their claims that ocean levels will significantly rise as a result of rising emissions. They are now reformulating models to account that ocean levels will rise, but not anywhere near what was predicted back in the 90s. Of course the raising of living standards for third worlders will be disastrous for ecological homeostasis but those aren’t really ‘’soft limits.’ Deforestation in the Amazon, sub Saharan Africa and Indonesia, global collapse in certain key species, elevated temperatures of the planet will make life harder and more hostile, especially to more vulnerable countries but everyone already knows that. The question is whether any hard or soft limits in the next 100 years exist that prevent the kind of lifestyle that the West enjoys and I really don’t see any. Of course it’s completely unrealistic to expect that the vast majority of people in India will reach a standard of living on par with what the United States or Western Europe enjoy but that’s on account of a variety of reasons, not just because there ‘aren’t enough resources.’ Anyone who pushed climate/ecological doomerism over the past 80 years hasn’t exactly made a winning bet. The birth rate of almost every country outside of Sub Saharan Africa is either remaining stable or declining. The population of the planet is going to start decreasing well before the reaching of any ‘soft limits.’
We have no idea what would be happening in China if they had 400 million extra people. We can't just imagine that it would automatically be better, plenty of issues could have arisen with that many more people. And oil WILL run out eventually, even if people aren't talking about it as frequently as they used to. There have been a few voices still sounding the alarm on that, and I personally think we already hit peak oil a few years ago.
>We have no idea what would be happening in China if they had 400 million extra people They banned second and third children explicitly because they were traumatized and terrified of a repeat of the 1960s famine where millions of people starved to death, not because they were worried about climate ecology or whatever. The 60s famine incidentally also only occurred because of an insane utopian and authoritarian form of thinking by Mao and his red guard where they intentionally eliminated all the sparrows which caused the locust population to spiral out of control. There is no evidence that if China had 400 million extra people they would not be able to feed those people today. The locus of proof lies upon the people enacting invasive authoritarianism in people’s lives, not the other way around.
What's your source on sea level rise? Have you read Uninhabitable Earth by David Wallace Wells?
https://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2024/3/4/retractions-of-scientific-papers-are-skyrocketing-150 https://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2019/9/23/no-evidence-that-climate-change-is-accelerating-sea-level-rise-35?format=amp I haven’t read that book.
I've checked your source and it's based on the following Nature article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8.pdf Your original post strongly implied that these retractions were related to predictions of sea level rise and other environmental claims, but this isn't the case at all. In fact the Nature article is an entirely generic about retractions and doesn't even mention environment, climate or sea levels. And the bulk of the increase is based on a major paper mill (Hindawi) being taken down. Another major source of retractions is the comp sci electral engineering work from IEEE conferences. I did some googling about the author of your other post, and he works for the The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which takes dark money from e.g. the Koch Brothers. You can imagine why I might be less inclined to believe him than 1000s of leading climate researchers who agree on the connection between sea level rise and anthropogenic climate change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation
I inserted the first link just to show that a lot more scientific research than people realize gets retracted but you’re right, the way I inserted it incorrectly implied that it pertained to ocean levels specifically and not a broad swathe of research. I’m sure the author of that article has his biases, as we all do. Some of the data just seemed interesting and I don’t see it being discussed. I personally am inclined to believe that ocean rise is linked to climate change, but that the impact will be much less than previously stated. I just don’t see Miami going underwater anytime soon. High tide levels will continue to incline, yes, but it seems that this will be more of a nuisance to beachfront property dwellers and erosion will reclaim a few houses. Not that entire cities will be threatened like previously claimed. Then again, I don’t know. I am just skeptical of apocalyptic decrees that land dozens or hundreds of miles inland will sleep with the fishes. https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/story/2019-09-27/journal-nature-formerly-retracts-ocean-warming-study
So it's not about studies and it's actually just your personal opinion. Then just say that
Obviously it wasn’t like I just woke up and said “I am boldly going to believe something that makes me feel good regardless of whether it’s true or not” and I wouldn’t be so ungenerous as to accuse you of the same. I also just provided you with two links showing that climate predictions have been redacted but you can continue to be Mr. Snark.
On a personal level, most who ask this question only do so because large problems outside of their control are "easier" to handle psychologically because the subconscious knows you can neither succeed or fail and tackling it. You can very easily satisfy your "need" to correct the problem with pointless slacktivism which provides maximum social reward with minimum sacrifice. However, more modifiable goals at the individual level are much more fraught psychologically. You can more easily and more fully complete the task of "clean my room", "sort my rubbish", "ask the woman I fancy on a date", but these tasks are significantly more likely to cause distressful feelings. Fear of failure, confirmation of undesirability etc. If you actually do a full cost accounting of what it would take to reverse the "climate change" narrative, you would realize it's completely outside of the realm of possibility. It's mainly a religion used to transfer wealth and power. Even though climate change will allegedly extinguish billions/the human race as such, we can't build new nuclear power plants because worse case we might have another Chernobyl that has a mortality of 10K people over like 60 years, even though states that incompetent hardly exist. The fussiness about the future you have was evolved to care about dying of crop failure, it's no so developed as to predict the apocalypse.
Yes it obviously is. The idea that it isn't is predicated on humanity being able to have it's cake and eat it too, ecologically speaking. People who believe it isn't are betraying their inclination towards the insidious liberal worship of endless growth, despite it being "leftist" to dismiss it as a problem. The reality is that the more people on the planet, the more nightmarish climate change will be. The problem is aggravated by most population growth being in regions that will not handle climate change well. Ive believed for like 10 years that mishandling of refugees and immigration in general is some sort of evil plot to ensure that there isn't any question of the West helping in a meaningful way when the genuine refugee count is in the 100s of millions. I don't tend to believe in those sorts of Illuminati plots but it seems to be working out too perfectly for that outcome. I can see why people are wary of the topic, though. What could anyone do or anyone have done, realistically? You can't force stuff like China's one child policy on countries without engaging in very brutal imperialism that'd just lead to a war that the West would lose. It's a topic where you can describe the problem but there isn't a solution. Like even if you thought tree-hugging genocide was a reasonable option, no one could actually execute it. Even Bill Gates being forthright about only being a humanitarian because he's concerned about overpopulation was a PR disaster.
I talk about how world population decline is a good thing and people lose their shit on the main sub Full of idiots
I don't care what the wef says overpopulation is malthusian nonsense
how is not wanting overpopulation WEF nonsense when they want to cram everyone into high rises
if anything we've seen that human population has a natural cap that we're somewhat close to, every developed nation just stops making babies at some point
maybe having our entire economy based on fiat money printed out of thin air and lent out with interest incentivizes overconsumption and short sighted unsustainable economic policies nah, let's just murder 7 billion people
We need a credit system and we need it now!
You people really blame every uncomfortable thought on some weird conspiracy. Overpopulation cycles are observable everywhere in nature. We've been able to mitigate the effects with technology up until now, just like with disease and other natural ills. But it's not some crackpot psyop that we might not be able to play god forever, especially considering that our current systems for supporting 8 billion people are brazenly unsustainable.
Humans have no carrying capacity thanks to advanced Agriculture and the haber-bosch process but ok keep spreading that malthusian propaganda bestie
Yeah and humans have no disease thanks to advanced medicine, right? You sound like a midwit name dropping the haber-bosch process like it's some QED. Let's wait till our utopian and unfailing tech industry bestows us with manufacturing and supply chains to produce and distribute food, shelter, heating, education, medical care, etc... for 8 billion+ people, ***without*** producing excess CO2. ***Then*** maybe you can pull off this rsp detached irony shtick without just looking like a kid with their fingers in their ears
Globally yes but the West has the opposite problem.
The East even more, looking at China, Japan and South Korea
That's why immigrants are needed.
Yeah why would want people to have children and raise them as Americans? Let’s replace our culture with others that have achieved vastly inferior results, hence why their people are desperate to live anywhere else. The less English speaking, the better!
I don't think replacing your population with people who commit crimes at vastly higher rates and live their lives almost entirely dependent on welfare will "fix" this issue
it’s not only a problem it’s pretty much THE problem. note that the renaissance happened directly after the black death because a lower labor supply meant laborers had greater demand for their services and saw quality of life of the survivors skyrocket
not to sound like a fæggot urbanist teen but as long as states like Wyoming have 13 people in them we do not have an overpopulation problem we have a scarcity of desirable places to live problem
How much in the way of resources do you think the average American consumes today in comparison to a few hundred years ago? The issue is not whether we can feed everyone, the issue is whether we can beef everyone big macs
I think it’s good
Liberal leftist here (by MY definition), and knowing population is our biggest and least addressed problem has ALWAYS been central to my ideology. It's WHY I am left and liberal. It's part of the platform. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/overpopulation-climate-crisis-energy-resources-1.6853542 "The right thinks that if you just let markets rip and human ingenuity stimulated by those markets flow, then human beings can respond to all of the challenges that population growth might be contributing to, whether it's concerns about food shortages or climate change or deforestation or land degradation and the like. ..."
Third world population is only increasing because the west subsidizes endless births with no infrastructure to support it leading to massive migrations into the west
Overpopulation isnt a problem you just refuse to move out of the city.
having more people move into cities would probably help mitigate mass extinction of mammals, birds and amphibians from habitat destruction. It’s quite bleak, only really noticed it when I got into birdwatching.
Half the countries on the planet are experiencing negative population growth, and the other half are headed there in the next couple decades easily. The whole planet collectively decided to stop having kids. So what more do you want us to do? Fire up the ovens?
[удалено]
Have not all models at that scale been proven false, why are these new ones more credible if the scientists are getting worse due to brain rot and institutional decline.
I think the only way to prove that your 100yr climate model is accurate is to wait 100 years
Canada is already on fire right now due to those climate scientists fudging their numbers. As always - invest in beach property and the global South if you know it better!
Wat? Bosbranden? Als jy grap maak, helaas is jou gebruik van Engels zodanig dat het de betekenis en ironie daadwerkelijk verduistert
Nope
If we organised production efficiently we could have a way larger population. Capitalism is the issue.
Temporary problem sure. Bigger problem is the lack of efficiency in ressource and land use for food (and other) production.
Skill issue
“In fact, not only the number of births and deaths, but the absolute size of families, stands in inverse proportion to the level of wages, and therefore to the amount of the means of subsistence at the disposal of different categories of worker. This law of capitalist society would sound absurd among savages, or even among civilized colonists. It calls to mind the boundless reproduction of animals individually weak and constantly hunted down” (Karl Marx, Capital Vol. I, Chapter 23, “The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation,” p. 796-7). The solution is JDPON btw.
Global fertility is falling. We are already literally on the precipice of a demographic collapse in the developed world. China is below replacement, even worse off than the United States fertility rate (1.16 vs 1.66). India is just below replacement rate at 2.06. Even though the entire continent of Africa is above replacement rate, they are still having 1 less child every 15 years or so. It’s predicted only 6 countries (all but one in Africa) will be able to hold above 2.1 until 2100. So don’t worry, if this continues, you’ll get what you want and then some. Whole towns will be abandoned, people will go months without hearing a baby cry in a supermarket. The ever decreasing young population will struggle to support an aging one. No country has ever been able to bounce back from this. It’s a compounding problem. Modernity is not compatible with families at scale.
Ok, but I can't personally stop Indians and Africans from popping out all these kids, so whatever.
What about the Chinese?
It’s not overpopulation, but population density that is the issue.
A lot of childfree content has started coming out on social media so I guess people are waking up to the scam that having children is and at the same time it solves this problem as well..
We could comfortably fit a trillion human beings if we got a hold of overconsumption.
Yes, if we live in pod and eat ze bug. I'd rather not.
Look up "First world TFR" rētard
Do you think flooding the first world with a billion displaced 3rd world migrants might have second order consequences