It’s hard watching the people around me make the same mistakes they always make and complain about the same mistakes they always make.
It’s hard watching large organizations and states make the same mistakes they always make and blame everyone else for the mistakes they always make. Even when history proves them wrong.
I can never understand why people argue for 8+ billion people on this planet when we collectively refuse to learn from mistakes.
Argue for? Sorry, trying to understand what you mean here before I jump to conclusions.
Population control is not a solution. There is no way in which that doesn’t involve Nazi level eugenics shit given our current world powers. I don’t think people ever really walk through the material steps to this in their head.
I’m merely exhausted by the complexity that people must deal with for each person we add to this planet. That complexity would be far more manageable if humans didn’t reproduce exponentially.
Yes we can support support 8 billion people. But why? From my understanding we got here mainly because capitalism and war has a high demand for warm bodies.
Maybe we can learn from our mistakes and deal with them rather than making excuses to remain on course for pain, suffering and disaster. Us humans learning and overcoming our current situation has the benefit for all life on this planet.
We got here pre-modern medicine has a high demand for babies (most of whom will die before reproducing). And agrarianism has a high demand for children (who become productive workers on the farm young).
Developed countries almost universally have birth rates below replacement levels. Their populations have internalized the facts that babies will almost always survive into adulthood. And children are a massive economic cost for decades. And that cost is often never paid back to the parents who incurred most of it. As long as contraceptives continue to make children typically a choice, and you get sub replacement levels of reproduction.
Sure, the capitalists would like for there to be more children to grow into workers and keep the machine humming along. However, they would also like to not pay for that; and by and large haven’t been.
Fair enough. That’s why I asked for clarification. I agree. I think I misinterpreted what you said as being a nod at people that say “reduce the population” while ignoring all of the problems with capitalism.
I’ll assume that’s a joke. I will in good faith hope someone isn’t actually as stupid to believe that. But this thread has sucked all the humor out of me. So forgive me.
This, we have the ability to support everyone anyway.
People like solving problems with killing and death because they’ve been taught to do this, and it is such an easy cop out. Don’t want to train you dog? Kill it. Problem solved. Don’t want to trim your tree or pick up leaves in the fall? Kill it, chop it down, problem solved.
This provides enough serotonin and dopamine when faced with issues, that it conditions people to use “kill it” as an easy solution for everything. Even if it isn’t the solution they settle on, it is such a habit and so comforting neurochemically that they will make like reflexive quips to keep it as a fantasy option even. Too many people in their opinion? Kill em, feels great, problem solved, easy, never even had to think but I feel as satisfied as if I DID think
This is a huge inference from what was originally said. The guy you’re replying to has a point, the problem isn’t that there’s 8 billion of us, and saying we need to stop population growth to solve our problems does border on eco fascism.
Sex ed and sexual healthcare is important for other reasons, as you mentioned, but we need to stop saying shit like “we’re the virus” because it’s just eco fascism
Personally, I can’t think of a reason why we should have more people on the planet. This isn’t an argument for actively reducing the the number of people, but instead providing the tools, education, and laws to allow people to manage their family sizes to cap or at least reduce population growth.
FYI, we are the virus. Humanity is multiple extinction events happening at the same time. If we are going to survive, then we need to be the kind of virus to integrates into our host’s DNA, and not the kind that destroys all the cells and delicate structures that allow our host to exist in the first place.
Why shouldn’t people be allowed to have many children? In poorer countries having many children is a form of insurance, as a portion of them just straight up die before reaching adulthood, and because they can care for their elders. If people want many kids, they should be allowed to have them, but they should also have the options to use protection and healthcare, with that I agree.
Saying humanity is the virus is the part I don’t agree with because most of the destruction is caused by a very small portion of humanity. We have enough resources on this planet to make sure all 8 billion (and more) of us can live comfortably, but instead the wealth distribution is so skewed that most of earth’s resources and wealth goes to a small percentage of people. The problem in this world aren’t poor families with 5 children, it’s the wealthy elite trying to maximize their profits above everything. THEY are the virus.
Why shouldn’t people be allowed to have many children?
This is a strawman argument, but I’ll bite anyway.
Two reasons, logarithmic growth, and finite resources.
Saying humanity is the virus is the part I don’t agree with because most of the destruction is caused by a very small portion of humanity.
It’s not all the virus particles that kill you, just the ones that knock out your essential organs.
The biggest climate impact the typical person can have, is to have fewer children. Hands down, that means fewer cars, less farming, less production, not only for that child, but any children they may have and so on.
Having many children as a form of insurance isn’t required in nearly as many places, that’s old-school semi-racist thinking. Providing a better chance for children to survive, and having a society that takes care of its elders eliminates this “need” entirely.
We have enough resources on this planet to make sure all 8 billion (and more) of us can live comfortably
It’s a cute idea, but getting those resources distributed evenly takes even more resources. I’ve read the article and it smells like bullshit to me because it uses GDP per capital to equate quality (or excess) of life. The availability of food, fresh water and shelter is not necessarily linked to GDP.
The problem in this world aren’t poor families with 5 children, it’s the wealthy elite trying to maximize their profits above everything. THEY are the virus.
Totally agree, but let’s not forget, those wealthy elites are the same species. Even if most of the virus isn’t killing the host, it’s still the same virus as the infection that is.
Are we doing ad-hominemns? You’d make a great idylic idiot, who doesn’t understand population growth, or what the definition of fascism is.
I’m not calling for hard limits on population. I’m calling for people to have the choice, tools, and knowledge to control their reproduction. Any further inferences about sterlization, euthanasia, child limits, etc… is all purely a comprehension issue on your end.
You called human-beings a virus. An ad-hominem is when you insult someone in order to not address their argument. Pointing out your language of calling humans “viruses” to be fascist is not ad-hominem. It’s directly addressing the language you used.
If you’re gonna point to logical fallacies you might want to know what they actually mean.
Now. I could have misunderstood what you meant. You were not really clear. But that language is literally eco-fascist.
Maybe Google their talking points. Because you’re repeating them even if you don’t intend to.
Calling me an eco-fascist is the ad-hominem. It’s missing the point that there is no benefit to having more people on the planet, there is no harm in providing people the means to control their reproduction (if they choose to do so). Eventually we will reach the carrying capacity of the planet which will require literally euthanizing or sterilizing people so that humanity can survive, so we will have to limit reproduction, and I’m in favor of encouraging people to do that electively right now. There is no sense in getting to that cricitical point earlier.
I did a quick search on what eco-fascists preach, and they seek to limit human population through violence or force ( which I’m not advocating for), along racial lines ( which I’m not advocating for), rejecting modernity ( I work in tech, definitely not something I’m for). I’m not an eco-fascist, and calling me one is an ad-hominemn to distract from the point that slowing or stopping human population growth through voluntary means is a gain for humanity as a whole.
I’m not using the same taking points as eco-fascists, and even if I was, I wouldn’t be concerned and here is why… Regular fascists platformed on making the trains run on time, but it would be ridiculous to label anyone pro-rail infrastructure as a fascist. Similarity in tools, is not similarity in execution and goals.
That’s not what I said at all. But, if you want to be serious. Even what you’re pointing to is not a simple issue and white supremacists do use “aid” and “education” as tools to reduce populations of “undesirables”.
It’s about self determination and independence first.
Those who come with wheat, millet, corn or milk, they are not helping us. Those who really want to help us can give us ploughs, tractors, fertilizers, insecticides, watering cans, drills and dams. That is how we would define food aid.
-Thomas Sankara
Western powers rarely have good intentions for their “aid” and is more often than not a tool to keep populations in the third world dependent on and subservient to capital.
But I don’t know why I bother even mentioning that because you don’t sound like the person to have an intelligent conversation with anyway given the conclusion you jumped to from my comment.
But I don’t know why I bother even mentioning that because you don’t sound like the person to have an intelligent conversation with anyway given the conclusion you jumped to from my comment.
That was the tongue-in-cheek point of my comment about you jumping to conclusions about the previous comment. They said that they don’t think more people on the planet is beneficial, and you went straight to calling people them an eco-nazi without bothering to understand what they meant.
I can’t tell which is worse; your reading comprehension or the irony of you saying I’m the one jumping to conclusions.
Maybe reread the initial comment I made. I asked for clarification on what they meant because I DIDN’T jump to conclusions. Then I clarified why I was asking because that language around “population” is often used by white supremacists.
I never accused that comment of such things and they followed it up with a clarification. We had an adult conversation and didn’t make a childish comment like you did.
Maybe go read it. Because it seems like you might need an example of how to actually communicate with people around sensitive subjects without just straw manning what someone is asking and saying.
You can misunderstand my comment. That’s fine. That can happen. But you’re doubling down on your misunderstanding now and pretending that that’s what I “secretly” meant. You are being childish.
I can’t tell which is worse; your reading comprehension or the irony of you saying I’m the one jumping to conclusions
Oh shit I’m sorry, this wasn’t you?
Population control is not a solution. There is no way in which that doesn’t involve Nazi level eugenics shit given our current world powers.
OH WAIT.
The real rich thing is you saying “I don’t want to jump to conclusions” and then the next two sentences are “You must be talking about population control and Nazi eugenics shit”.
Does this type of conversation not exhaust you? Like, clearly I clarified that I had no intention to target the commenter in my initial comment. Can that not just be a misunderstanding on your part or a clarity problem in the comment on my part?
Like, you’ve had the purpose of the comment clarified to you. The point was to explain why I was concerned with the language.
And now you’re here taking screenshots and highlighting something I am not denying I wrote. I am explaining to you the intention behind the word I wrote.
Ironically, not offering me the same charity I offered to the initial comment when I ask for them to clarify what they meant. You could have been an adult and done that. But here we are.
I swear “debate lord” culture has rotten the brains of a generation. This isn’t a YouTube click bait video my friend.
There is no audience for our conversation even. No one would bother reading this deep besides you and me.
You are allowed to say your initial response was in bad faith (it was) and I’m allowed to say that I should have made my initial comment more clear (it could have been better).
But at this point you’re talking to one person (me) and trying to convince them they meant something they didn’t. That sounds exhausting. I know what I meant and what the intention of my comment was. I was the one who wrote it.
Not really much of a conversation TBH. Just try to avoid associating peope with Nazis or Eco-Fascists before you try to understand what they are saying. I did see your split off thread, and I’m glad there was a more measured and serious tone in there…
You could have just left it at your first paragraph and left out your incomplete opinions about how the only solution is population control through eugenics. I thought it was a funny interaction, boiled it down to its core concepts, threw in a dash of all caps no spaces and it blew up.
It’s hard watching the people around me make the same mistakes they always make and complain about the same mistakes they always make.
It’s hard watching large organizations and states make the same mistakes they always make and blame everyone else for the mistakes they always make. Even when history proves them wrong.
I can never understand why people argue for 8+ billion people on this planet when we collectively refuse to learn from mistakes.
I’m tired…
Argue for? Sorry, trying to understand what you mean here before I jump to conclusions.
Population control is not a solution. There is no way in which that doesn’t involve Nazi level eugenics shit given our current world powers. I don’t think people ever really walk through the material steps to this in their head.
I didn’t state anything about population control.
I’m merely exhausted by the complexity that people must deal with for each person we add to this planet. That complexity would be far more manageable if humans didn’t reproduce exponentially.
Yes we can support support 8 billion people. But why? From my understanding we got here mainly because capitalism and war has a high demand for warm bodies.
Maybe we can learn from our mistakes and deal with them rather than making excuses to remain on course for pain, suffering and disaster. Us humans learning and overcoming our current situation has the benefit for all life on this planet.
We got here pre-modern medicine has a high demand for babies (most of whom will die before reproducing). And agrarianism has a high demand for children (who become productive workers on the farm young).
Developed countries almost universally have birth rates below replacement levels. Their populations have internalized the facts that babies will almost always survive into adulthood. And children are a massive economic cost for decades. And that cost is often never paid back to the parents who incurred most of it. As long as contraceptives continue to make children typically a choice, and you get sub replacement levels of reproduction.
Sure, the capitalists would like for there to be more children to grow into workers and keep the machine humming along. However, they would also like to not pay for that; and by and large haven’t been.
Fair enough. That’s why I asked for clarification. I agree. I think I misinterpreted what you said as being a nod at people that say “reduce the population” while ignoring all of the problems with capitalism.
All society needs to do is stop having babies for 20 years…
I’ll assume that’s a joke. I will in good faith hope someone isn’t actually as stupid to believe that. But this thread has sucked all the humor out of me. So forgive me.
This, we have the ability to support everyone anyway.
People like solving problems with killing and death because they’ve been taught to do this, and it is such an easy cop out. Don’t want to train you dog? Kill it. Problem solved. Don’t want to trim your tree or pick up leaves in the fall? Kill it, chop it down, problem solved.
This provides enough serotonin and dopamine when faced with issues, that it conditions people to use “kill it” as an easy solution for everything. Even if it isn’t the solution they settle on, it is such a habit and so comforting neurochemically that they will make like reflexive quips to keep it as a fantasy option even. Too many people in their opinion? Kill em, feels great, problem solved, easy, never even had to think but I feel as satisfied as if I DID think
This is a huge inference from what was originally said. The guy you’re replying to has a point, the problem isn’t that there’s 8 billion of us, and saying we need to stop population growth to solve our problems does border on eco fascism.
Sex ed and sexual healthcare is important for other reasons, as you mentioned, but we need to stop saying shit like “we’re the virus” because it’s just eco fascism
Personally, I can’t think of a reason why we should have more people on the planet. This isn’t an argument for actively reducing the the number of people, but instead providing the tools, education, and laws to allow people to manage their family sizes to cap or at least reduce population growth.
FYI, we are the virus. Humanity is multiple extinction events happening at the same time. If we are going to survive, then we need to be the kind of virus to integrates into our host’s DNA, and not the kind that destroys all the cells and delicate structures that allow our host to exist in the first place.
Why shouldn’t people be allowed to have many children? In poorer countries having many children is a form of insurance, as a portion of them just straight up die before reaching adulthood, and because they can care for their elders. If people want many kids, they should be allowed to have them, but they should also have the options to use protection and healthcare, with that I agree.
Saying humanity is the virus is the part I don’t agree with because most of the destruction is caused by a very small portion of humanity. We have enough resources on this planet to make sure all 8 billion (and more) of us can live comfortably, but instead the wealth distribution is so skewed that most of earth’s resources and wealth goes to a small percentage of people. The problem in this world aren’t poor families with 5 children, it’s the wealthy elite trying to maximize their profits above everything. THEY are the virus.
This is a strawman argument, but I’ll bite anyway.
Two reasons, logarithmic growth, and finite resources.
It’s not all the virus particles that kill you, just the ones that knock out your essential organs.
The biggest climate impact the typical person can have, is to have fewer children. Hands down, that means fewer cars, less farming, less production, not only for that child, but any children they may have and so on.
Having many children as a form of insurance isn’t required in nearly as many places, that’s old-school semi-racist thinking. Providing a better chance for children to survive, and having a society that takes care of its elders eliminates this “need” entirely.
It’s a cute idea, but getting those resources distributed evenly takes even more resources. I’ve read the article and it smells like bullshit to me because it uses GDP per capital to equate quality (or excess) of life. The availability of food, fresh water and shelter is not necessarily linked to GDP.
Totally agree, but let’s not forget, those wealthy elites are the same species. Even if most of the virus isn’t killing the host, it’s still the same virus as the infection that is.
You’d make a great eco-fascist.
Are we doing ad-hominemns? You’d make a great idylic idiot, who doesn’t understand population growth, or what the definition of fascism is.
I’m not calling for hard limits on population. I’m calling for people to have the choice, tools, and knowledge to control their reproduction. Any further inferences about sterlization, euthanasia, child limits, etc… is all purely a comprehension issue on your end.
You called human-beings a virus. An ad-hominem is when you insult someone in order to not address their argument. Pointing out your language of calling humans “viruses” to be fascist is not ad-hominem. It’s directly addressing the language you used.
If you’re gonna point to logical fallacies you might want to know what they actually mean.
Now. I could have misunderstood what you meant. You were not really clear. But that language is literally eco-fascist.
Maybe Google their talking points. Because you’re repeating them even if you don’t intend to.
Calling me an eco-fascist is the ad-hominem. It’s missing the point that there is no benefit to having more people on the planet, there is no harm in providing people the means to control their reproduction (if they choose to do so). Eventually we will reach the carrying capacity of the planet which will require literally euthanizing or sterilizing people so that humanity can survive, so we will have to limit reproduction, and I’m in favor of encouraging people to do that electively right now. There is no sense in getting to that cricitical point earlier.
I did a quick search on what eco-fascists preach, and they seek to limit human population through violence or force ( which I’m not advocating for), along racial lines ( which I’m not advocating for), rejecting modernity ( I work in tech, definitely not something I’m for). I’m not an eco-fascist, and calling me one is an ad-hominemn to distract from the point that slowing or stopping human population growth through voluntary means is a gain for humanity as a whole.
I’m not using the same taking points as eco-fascists, and even if I was, I wouldn’t be concerned and here is why… Regular fascists platformed on making the trains run on time, but it would be ridiculous to label anyone pro-rail infrastructure as a fascist. Similarity in tools, is not similarity in execution and goals.
That’s not what I said at all. But, if you want to be serious. Even what you’re pointing to is not a simple issue and white supremacists do use “aid” and “education” as tools to reduce populations of “undesirables”.
It’s about self determination and independence first.
-Thomas Sankara
Western powers rarely have good intentions for their “aid” and is more often than not a tool to keep populations in the third world dependent on and subservient to capital.
But I don’t know why I bother even mentioning that because you don’t sound like the person to have an intelligent conversation with anyway given the conclusion you jumped to from my comment.
That was the tongue-in-cheek point of my comment about you jumping to conclusions about the previous comment. They said that they don’t think more people on the planet is beneficial, and you went straight to calling people them an eco-nazi without bothering to understand what they meant.
Woosh.
I can’t tell which is worse; your reading comprehension or the irony of you saying I’m the one jumping to conclusions.
Maybe reread the initial comment I made. I asked for clarification on what they meant because I DIDN’T jump to conclusions. Then I clarified why I was asking because that language around “population” is often used by white supremacists.
I never accused that comment of such things and they followed it up with a clarification. We had an adult conversation and didn’t make a childish comment like you did.
Maybe go read it. Because it seems like you might need an example of how to actually communicate with people around sensitive subjects without just straw manning what someone is asking and saying.
You can misunderstand my comment. That’s fine. That can happen. But you’re doubling down on your misunderstanding now and pretending that that’s what I “secretly” meant. You are being childish.
Oh shit I’m sorry, this wasn’t you?
OH WAIT.
The real rich thing is you saying “I don’t want to jump to conclusions” and then the next two sentences are “You must be talking about population control and Nazi eugenics shit”.
Don’t fuck with me. I’ve got receipts.
Does this type of conversation not exhaust you? Like, clearly I clarified that I had no intention to target the commenter in my initial comment. Can that not just be a misunderstanding on your part or a clarity problem in the comment on my part?
Like, you’ve had the purpose of the comment clarified to you. The point was to explain why I was concerned with the language.
And now you’re here taking screenshots and highlighting something I am not denying I wrote. I am explaining to you the intention behind the word I wrote.
Ironically, not offering me the same charity I offered to the initial comment when I ask for them to clarify what they meant. You could have been an adult and done that. But here we are.
I swear “debate lord” culture has rotten the brains of a generation. This isn’t a YouTube click bait video my friend.
There is no audience for our conversation even. No one would bother reading this deep besides you and me.
You are allowed to say your initial response was in bad faith (it was) and I’m allowed to say that I should have made my initial comment more clear (it could have been better).
But at this point you’re talking to one person (me) and trying to convince them they meant something they didn’t. That sounds exhausting. I know what I meant and what the intention of my comment was. I was the one who wrote it.
Not really much of a conversation TBH. Just try to avoid associating peope with Nazis or Eco-Fascists before you try to understand what they are saying. I did see your split off thread, and I’m glad there was a more measured and serious tone in there…
You could have just left it at your first paragraph and left out your incomplete opinions about how the only solution is population control through eugenics. I thought it was a funny interaction, boiled it down to its core concepts, threw in a dash of all caps no spaces and it blew up.