Submitted by [deleted] in lobby (edited )

8

Comments

The submission is locked. You cannot post new comments.

Splinglebot wrote

I wish more people would realise that a rich person complaining about overpopulation essentially boils down to "I'd rather commit genocide than give up my privilege"

11

[deleted] wrote (edited )

4

existential1 wrote

I agree with this sentiment and also believe it's entirely possible that if everyone severely cut their resource usage there would still be too many people. I don't believe its mutually exclusive.

And i need to specify, too many people for the Earth to regenerate itself as it did for so long before industrialization. If everyone cuts back resources, as they should, it would also drastically cut production of many things (mostly a great thing). It would also cut the margin for error that many of our systems rely on. Food distribution systems likely wouldn't be able to keep up at first with less resources going in considering practically nobody knows how to...or has the space to...grow enough food(or get enough water) for themselves or their community. If we all cut back...the rich will die out, and so will many others who aren't rich. Particularly the people in rough geographic areas like deserts and more arid regions in general. People will legit starve and be dehydrated. I dont understand being a realist about the need to get rid of the wealthy and this system and being much less realistic about the fact that people need water every 3 days, a certain amount of food, and that shocks to the distribution system will cause many to die until its equalized.

5

keerin wrote

I've had this discussion with a friend, he summed up his attitude as "could doesn't mean should". Which did make me think.

2

existential1 wrote

If that phrase is directed at the should I mentioned as far as reducing consumption, I definitely should've prefaced that with a "given your current resource usage" or something. Obviously some people and communities are and have been exemplary stewards of their resources and ecology.

3

[deleted] wrote

−4

existential1 wrote

Absolutely not. What did you read that struck you as heading in that direction?

4

[deleted] wrote (edited )

−3

existential1 wrote

I've been on raddle for quite some time and this is the first time anyone has accused me of anything remotely similar of that accusation.

You really don't have to like me. I'll be here on the site participating like I have been long before you got here and probably long after you're gone. Or maybe you'll stick around...who knows. I hope you do. Folks with your disposition as evidenced in this thread don't seem to stick around long. Most of your other contributions seem to reflect that of those who tend to stick around.

0

Splinglebot wrote

me

if ur good u get to be on the list. by which I mean obedient ofc

1

Splinglebot wrote

ok william lead by example pls

7

PrinceWill wrote

Sorry about the misunderstanding there mate, I meant there are too many poors in the world. Sorry about that, and have a brilliant day.

6

mofongo wrote

Will you giving all your money to the poor? Give away your land holdings and property?

3

PrinceWill wrote

Haha, good one mate. Can you imagine? A horde of poors in Bucklebury Manor, touching everything with their greasy fingers?

5

emma wrote

im reminded of when bill gates said the same thing, and microsoft co-founder paul allen died shortly afterwards

4

black_fox moderator wrote (edited )

this conversation seems to have ceased to be productive. temporarily locking

edit: unlocked for now

2

zzuum wrote

Volunteer him to be in the first culling

1

rot wrote

too many rich 'people' like him

1

ziq wrote (edited )

Gives us a handy heads up for what they're planning

2

shanc wrote

he's right tho

−1

n_n wrote

No he isn't and you are full of shit.

4

n_n wrote (edited )

When political movements or leaders adopt population control as a central concern … let’s just say it never goes well. In practice, where you find concern over “population,” you very often find racism, xenophobia, or eugenics lurking in the wings. It’s almost always, ahem, particular populations that need reducing.

If your concern is the creation of new consumers and emitters, your gaze should be drawn to those who will consume and emit the most, i.e., the wealthy.

Population is a factor in environmental impact but is the least influential part.. The problem is the over overconsumption in wealthy countries.. Here in Latin America the wealthy capitalists are imposing forced sterilization in indigenous people backed by the eugenic myth of overpopulation, as I said. And by promoting that myth you are also accomplice.

I want to hear what u/Tequila_wolf and u/Ziq, who shared the article that you posted, have to said about this.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

You want to know what I think about the article or the overpopulation argument?

It's not constructive to talk about overpopulation because it empowers the filthy rich eugenicists like Bill Gates, who have lots of children themselves but then insist poor (PoC) people need to stop reproducing. Then he funds shady efforts to curb PoC populations and tours the world in a private jet lecturing the poor to stop breeding.

Meanwhile his little trust fund brats are erecting gigantic mansions all over the world, cruising around on their yachts and jets, paving over their private islands, burning millions of tons more carbon than a single poor kid in the global South ever will.

Doesn't matter whether or not it's true that an ecosystem can only support so many humans, focusing on it only hurts vulnerable people and lets the billionaire industrialists make scapegoats of them. Workers are forced to huddle together on marginal land around industrial areas to try and survive. The rich forced them onto that land. The rich took away our ability to be self sufficient and autonomous and regenerative because none of those things make them money or give them control over us.

It's an easy trap to fall into when you look at the decimated ecosystems that have been stripped of all non-human life, but remember that the rich forced people to live this way, to ensure everyone would have no choice but to work for them. The rich made this mess and the best way to alleviate harm to our ecosystems is to remove the rich from the equation and shutter their enterprises so we no longer need to huddle around industrial cities begging for their scraps to survive.

5

n_n wrote (edited )

You want to know what I think about the article or the overpopulation argument?

All discussed by me and manc, I calling for your mediation.

Also I will want to add that when humans practice a sustainable ways of living the ecosystem benefit greatly, in this system the population is unsustainable, but the culprit is the system.

edit: a word

1

ziq wrote (edited )

You don't need mediation for a simple disagreement. Just don't yell at each other is all.

Something I've also been thinking about lately is a BBC report I heard about how hazelnut farmers in Turkey will have 10 or more children because every child can pick x nuts. The more children they have, the more profit they'll make under capitalism. They literally see their children in terms of a direct monetary value. Capitalism does that, without capitalism, they would have no need to grow and pick more hazelnuts than they'd need to feed themselves.

The same thing happened after WW2 when the Western states incentivized everyone to have large families to create workers to replace all the ones that died in the war (and to build new factories to equip new wars now that they realized how profitable war was).

Capitalism in its early stages directly creates baby booms because it needs a large work force. Then in its late stages like modern Western nations, the workforce is rapidly obsolete and the capitalists instead look to cull them.

6

shanc wrote

Population is a factor in environmental impact

the eugenic myth of overpopulation

Which one is it? Is it a factor, or is it a myth?

I want to hear what ... who shared the article that you posted, have to said about this.

All rise, the court is in session...

1

n_n wrote

It's a myth that overpopulation is causing climate change, mass extinction and other environmental issues.

You said:

I believe there are too many people in the world.

I'd like fewer people and more animals.

You said that and implied that because there are to many people there are fewer animals. You didn't talk about the system or overconsumption. You said specifically that you agreed with Prince William, a member of the nobility from an imperialist country which is one of the principal responsible for the ecological devastation in the world.

1

shanc wrote

It's a myth that overpopulation is causing climate change, mass extinction and other environmental issues

I thought population was a factor in all of the above? I mean if there were no people there'd be literally none of those problems...

You said specifically that you agreed with Prince William, a member of the nobility

Would the court permit me to agree with the same words if they were said by, say, the author of Desert?

1

n_n wrote

I said population is a factor in the way that the system works, I agree what u/Ziq said with their examples.

0

ziq wrote

the world has the population it does because of civilization / industrialism / capitalism. without those things, the population would revert to its pre-industrial numbers because humans would no longer be the disposable commodities needed to power industry. our lifestyles would revert to being regenerative like the rainforest peoples instead of isolating, disconnected and destructive. we'd live as part of our ecosystems instead of safely above them encased in concrete boxes, so we'd feel everything done to the ecosystem like it was done to our own bodies and react accordingly

right now we've been forcibly cut off from our ecosystems so they can be exploited and so we can be exploited

2

n_n wrote (edited )

Population is a result and not the cause is what I'm saying. There is also the issue with food waste.

1

ziq wrote

When ppl ping me I just say a bunch of stuff about the topic, wasn't in response to anything you said really.

2

n_n wrote

I agree with what you are saying. I just wanted to add that. ^_^

0

shanc wrote

Glad we can all agree there are too many people in the world.

1

n_n wrote (edited )

When we agree with that? You still aren't reading what we are saying.

Ziq said:

It's not constructive to talk about overpopulation because it empowers the filthy rich eugenicists

Doesn't matter whether or not it's true that an ecosystem can only support so many humans, focusing on it only hurts vulnerable people and lets the billionaire industrialists make scapegoats of them.

The rich made this mess and the best way to alleviate harm to our ecosystems is to remove the rich from the equation and shutter their enterprises so we no longer need to huddle around industrial cities begging for their scraps to survive.

the world has the population it does because of civilization / industrialism / capitalism. without those things, the population would revert to its pre-industrial numbers because humans would no longer be the disposable commodities needed to power industry.

Nobody agreed with you saying that there are many people in the world. We said that is irrelevant how many people are because there are not the cause of the problem. I'm not going to keep discussing with you since you don't pay attention to what we are saying.

1

shanc wrote

Glad we can all agree there aren't enough people in the world

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

−3

shanc wrote

I'm just going to assume you're a FaCiSt who wants to kill people and I'll make sure to tell everyone you are.

Please don't! I'll tow the party line in the future, I promise! Just to confirm, was the correct opinion 'there are an optimal number of people in the world'?

1

[deleted] wrote

−2

shanc wrote

Okay there are not enough people in the world

−3

[deleted] wrote

1

Splinglebot wrote

ha. get it? because you get more people in the world through children. haha. funny.

3

shanc wrote

Wait was the right answer 'there are an optimal number of people in the world'?

I believe there are too many people in the world. I also believe there are too many people living in my house right now. Doesn't mean I wish any harm on my housemates. I just wish there were fewer of them and more dogs.

2

n_n wrote

I believe

I believe that you are talking unfounded nonsenses and I just wish that you shut the fuck up.

−2

shanc wrote (edited )

Oops look like this topic is out of bounds for discussion. Let's go back to 'RICH PEOPLE SUCK' shall we?

3

n_n wrote (edited )

You are not discussing anything, you are just exposing your personal beliefs with nothing that back it up. The overpopulation myth is something that ecofascist are pushing to blame people of color of things like climate change and justify ethnic cleansing.

0

shanc wrote

ethical cleansing

That's a helluva leap. Even Murray Fucking Bookchin talked about overpopulation.

I'd like fewer people and more animals. That said, I have absolutely no desire to see my individual whims become some kind of global policy. i.e. I'm anarchist, not authoritarian.

3