Malthus was wrong, right?
It seems eerily close to being ecofascist
Yes, Malthus was proven wrong not long after publication of his famous book, but malthusianism is still very popular out there because it is the “scientific” theory which speaks to every fascist and racist mind - it provide perfect framework to justify capitalism even in its worst facets, and shift all the blame from that system and its beneficients straight to its victims.
Overpopulation is not a problem, moreover if humanity will continue to develop itself (everyone gets education, industrialization), we will face the opposite — aging and declining population.
We produce more than enough food and have more than enough houses
But were not sustainably creating that food. We can’t keep going the way we are
Overpopulation is the neoliberal excuse to kill minorities, that’s it.
This
Nope, even with current tech we can sustain 10 billion at worst.
We can sustain more if capitalism is abolished.
Malthus was accurate only if you never consider developing new technology or food sources. His ideas were fundementally limited by narrow sighted racism assuming that minorities wouldn’t develop agriculture. And that they wouldn’t be able to have higher yields than achieved than were already achieved.
Even as his ideas have been applied to population genetics in ecology fields for environments undergoing change researchers are realizing that unless a species is very specialized to just one food source they’ll find something new. And that may have other ecological impacts, but it stands to reason humans will find alternative sources as well.
No. Overpopulation is a racist myth used to justify genocide.
:100:
It wouldn’t be a problem for our world in the foreseeable future, and by the time it would become a real problem, we would likely not be bound to a single planet anymore.
Apart from the good answers in this thread already, the solution to overpopulation is never a change of the system or whatever but always boils down to some form of genocide.
Ask Westerners which group is the biggest problem, and 9/10 you’ll get the answers that it’s some non-white group somewhere. Which is completely ignoring the fact that a US child has like 9 times the amount of pollution that a random African kid has. So 9 African kids can compensate 1 US child. But it’s never the US children that need to go somehow.
People also like to spew the ‘BUT LOOK AT CHINA!!’ argument regarding pollution, which is ignoring why China has to produce these massive amounts of stuff. It’s not because they like to do it. It’s because they are the number one Global supplier of many things. Of course you’ll have a lot of pollution if the majority of the world relies on your factories and labor.
We have the resources to supply even more people than the current population, it’s just how we use the available resources that’s wrong. And that requires a change of the system. The overpopulation argument is just a very simple way of looking at things, while reality requires a very broad understanding of why things are the way they are. Poor people don’t magically breed more, their material conditions force them to. Conditions forced upon them by capitalist society. Their polluting ways of production are forced upon them by capitalist society. It’s not because they are black or poor or Asian or non-white whatever that they are somehow less eco-friendly by nature. Overpopulation and general eco-talk carries a lot of racism with it.
some form of genocide
:100:
Another thing that frustrates me about the “look at china” people regarding pollution, is that CO2 emissions per capita for the PRC are 7.38 tons. Lots of countries have higher emissions per capita, eg: Germany (9.44), USA (15.52), Canada (18.58), UAE (23.37). source
Also, people fail to consider the cumulative emissions of decades of polluting already industrialized countries have been doing. Countries like China are rapidly industrializing, and “the west” can’t expect countries to increase their living standards without some years of increased emissions.
A just approach would be that industrialized countries would fund a more environmentally friendly development in these countries, no strings attached. But of course they won’t even sufficiently fund environmentally friendly development in their own countries.
Also since China and the global south build a lot of the west’s goods they are basically just spreading the per capita pollution of the west around the world.
Yes. The global plutocracy wants us to think the world can support an infinite number of people. It can’t. The capitalists want more people for a cheap labor pool, a market, more people to fight the wars they think will be profitable, more people to pay taxes instead of them. Why do you think the rich are supporting forced birth. Why do you think we’re running out of everything? Why is the biosphere being destroyed? Why are so many animals going extinct? Too many people. I’m not saying the wealthy aren’t making it worse. They are. But still, too many people.
Now I can’t change your minds. So death will take the world.
Lmao what? We can sustain 10 billion with our current indsutrial capcity.
Sustainably?
Industrialized food practices are not sustainable… how can we?
