Well, see, the people who want to cull the population of the earth, it’s not THEM who should die, since they are so very important to the history of the world, see? It’s really those OTHER people, especially THOSE people who breed too much and who decided to live in poverty… THOSE are the people who should be… allowed to die out, given how they are wasteful and greedy and provide nothing of value to the planet… not being European and all… /s
Are you feeling snarky and angry, cause I kind of am…
Or maybe an economy that doesn’t depend on the mass production underpinned by fossil fuels?
It’s sad, I’m not rooting for the destruction of 6.5B people. Just pointing out that our society is doing its best to ensure that Nature will do the decimation if we like it or not. There are things we could do to reduce the possibility, but as a whole, our society, government, financial and industrial structures are accelerating in the wrong direction right now.
I doubt we’d be dealing with environmental disaster if it had not been for the industrial revolution that was built on coal and then oil. It’s not the fact of the people, it’s how we attempt to feed, clothe, and entertain those people via a fossil fueled economy that got us here.
But hey, don’t worry, the murder of a large portion of the population will likely happen in the global south, so we lucky ducks up north won’t have to worry about seeing it. /s
Please stop mansplaining shit to me. I’m replying to people who are basically advocating for culling the global population.
Not a problem. Enjoy
Yes, Rwanda in the mid 90’s was one of them. Genocide was prompted not only by political conditions but a rapidly increasing population density.
Also: Immigration is not becoming more common in the developed world outside of the US and Canada due to efforts to deal with aging populations
They did. It just took 3 years longer than expected. The lack of retirement funds meant many relied on home equity to fund their lives. Predatory equity lending hit them very hard. People who were free and clear in their homes became engulfed in the mortgage meltdown / bunded securities stock market meltdown.
Yeah, no. It’s not like the number of people in an area hit a certain number, and they automatically began to hack up one group… I’d suggest that the roots more likely lie in the longer history of colonialism and the post-colonial situation.
I was admittedly being oversimplistic but overpopulation certainly inflamed economic and political tensions. (Jared Diamond even discussed it in his book Collapse in 2005)
Well at least China’s not a nuclear-tipped, resource-hungry nation whose unresolved territorial disputes with its neighbours could easily be used as a pretext for war by a worried government.
Oh…
I can’t say I’m convinced by Diamond’s argument, frankly.
We can’t continue to ignore European colonialism in our analysis of the modern world - because European colonialism had such a major role in shaping the world that led to globalized industrialization. We do so at our peril (and by our, I mean the entire world’s peril). The industrial revolution is a far more central problem in our current set of woes than some malthusian concerns of the wrong sort of people “breeding” too much. Malthus was far more concerned about “controlling” the poor than he was about dealing with problems as they actually exist. Pretty much the problems faced by post-colonial Rwanda comes right down to how Europeans employed and racialized social structures like clans and tribes as a divide and rule tactic.
Unless things change, Kenya could well be heading that way. Very rapid population growth mixed with an underperforming economy, desertification in the north, tribal rivalries and a massively corrupt political system.
And the future of South Africa looks increasingly bleak - all of the injustices of apartheid left unaddressed as the ANC turned into just another African political party and looted the country.
I am not disagreeing with a word you just said. It is not an either/or thing. There can be several factors at play. Maybe not of equal weight or causal connection, but they can exist. The industrial revolution and European colonialism are not being discounted here. But high population density and diminishing resources cultures has generally been a factor towards war, famine and political unrest. Rwanda presented a case which was a bit unusual compared to neighboring countries with the same colonialist/industrial issues.
Malthus was wrong. The Green Revolution proved to the world food supplies can overtake population growth. We would not be talking about China as a major economic power if he was correct.
Those two things are intimately connected. Saying that they aren’t is just ignoring history, which was my point. The onus has been put on the global south, which had it’s wealth, people, and freedom expropriated for a couple of centuries, to fix these problems.
And that, boys and girls, is why the US actually needs those migrants who are being stopped at the border. Our own fertility rate isn’t going to sustain us either.
That’s not true, and it’s not what was forecasted. Boomers withdrawing money from the stock market for retirement was not a cause of the 2008 crash at all. Without the insane and massive real estate bubble there would have been no crash and no recession, at least not a great recession.
I am not saying they aren’t.
I agree with you. But its not an either/or thing. There can be many factors at play. They are clearly not exclusive of each other. You are looking for an argument which isn’t there nor am I making.
They should overthrow their capitalist government and establish one that redistributes wealth to the workers
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
― George Orwell, [Animal Farm]
I have a great idea… how about we ALL stop worrying about the fertility of others. I don’t know why there is so much hand wringing over people either having “too many” or “not enough” babies.
