• Rediphile@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    The only real solution is intentional population control. But I don’t have high hopes we ever get there though.

    Everyone could have way more resources than we’d ever want to even use. But instead, we seem focused on maxing out the world population leaving the least amount possible for each person.

    • ChewTiger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem is the improper distribution of resources, not overpopulation. If we truly tried we could sustainably support our current population and work on healing the world.

      Talking about intentional population control is a fat too slippery slope.

      • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Are you suggesting that there’s no limit to how many people the resources we have available to us can support?

        • masquenox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh, there probably is. All things being equal (and that’s the important factor) there is next-to-no chance of us ever reaching such a bizarre amount of people - you could triple the amount of people on earth, and, all things being equal, we still wouldn’t be “overpopulated.”

          However, things are not equal - which means we are already existing way beyond that which our ecology can support. And it’s all thanks to capitalist parasites - a very small group of people sucking everything dry at the expense of everyone and everything else.

            • masquenox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What standard of living do you consider “all things being equal”?

              I don’t consider “standards of living” - period.

              I consider this.

              • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s literally an article about how they don’t have enough water. Yes, the rich are using twice as much as the poor and it would go further if it was distributed more evenly but the fact remains that there’s a finite amount that is not sustainable beyond a certain population.

                • masquenox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  This…

                  All things being equal (and that’s the important factor) there is next-to-no chance of us ever reaching such a bizarre amount of people

                  …just went completely over your head, didn’t it?

                  • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No? The article says rich people are using 2x as much water as poor people - 50% vs 23% and they are already having water problems. Assuming the water consumption was evened out this leaves the population room to go up no more than 4x what it is now even with equal consumption. That’s hardly out of the realm of possibility considering the population already has gone up 8x since 1950

      • rchive@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Malthus and Erlich, right wingers?

        I don’t see many right wing people on this list. Thoughts?

        • masquenox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Whether Malthus himself was a right-winger or not isn’t really important… it doesn’t change how the trope of overpopulation has been used to protect power and privilege (ie, the whole point of right-wing ideology). For instance, there is a very good reason why white supremacists support the criminalization of women’s health care in (supposedly) “white” countries while demonizing 3rd world countries for their (supposedly) “explosive population growth.”

          It’s a very old trope that flattens human consumption and therefore camouflages the reality that certain classes of people consume resources at astronomical rates in comparison with the rest. It’s utility in shielding class hierarchies from scrutiny should be perfectly obvious.