The Earth can sustain the current population levels. Imagine we decrease those, at what point do we stop?
The problem with malthusianism is that it doesn’t give any tangible answer to the issues it claims to solve.
First off, when do we stop that decrease? Secondly, when we reach the coveted equilibrium point, how do we stop the plundering of resources capitalists will still subject us to?
I’m not arguing for an ever-increasing demography, but I’m against a system that’s unattainable (because, even with violent rule enforcement, people will keep having kids), does not meaningfully address the issue with the plundering of terrestrial resources, and means the lower class will have to bear the brunt of the work of dealing with an aging population.
I don’t think it can sustain the current population levels, at our North American standard of living. If we could distribute resources evenly, sure, we could keep everyone alive, but energy consumption, plastic production, all that adds up to an ecological footprint of resource use that isn’t sustainable.
World wildlife levels have gone down dramatically. We’re expanding human life at the expense of all other life. The other life on earth isn’t superfluous: it’s an ecosystem that keeps us alive, recycles our waste, provides our medicines and cultural wealth of all sorts.
We can’t keep our wealthy lifestyle and at the same time tell the poor people of the world that they have to stay poor so that we can remain wealthy.
I’m not saying the north american lifestyle is sustainable. Just that planet Earth can sustain 7 billion people if things are managed a bit more efficiently.
I’m well aware that our lifestyles are causing suffering on the other side of the planet. And I solemnly condemn spoiled westerners that have the gall of telling the people they cause suffering to to stop having kids (because those faraway regions is where population levels grow the fastest).
Malthusianism, like eugenics, is half-baked. It’s surface-level ideology that offers no real answer and is more of a feeling than anything with nothing concrete to show for it. Push it to its logical conclusions, and you get to nazi-style forced sterilization and similar policies. And you still didn’t address climate change.
I mostly agree but I think we could maintain a lifestyle that is near Western levels, but done more efficiently. It wouldn’t be the same lifestyle, but it would be a good one.
I.e.
dense, walkable neighbourhoods with mixed-use zoning
trains, trams and electric buses instead of cars
any job that can be done from home should be mandatory to do from home
minimal to no meat consumption, especially emissions intensive meat like beef
economic incentives and disincentives to minimise energy consumption and waste
circular economies that re-use and recycle most things
100% renewable energy production (and eventually, green manufacturing).
Although even with that, it would be an easier job if there is some level of population decline, but I don’t think any encouragement is needed (societies where women are highly educated tend to have declining birth rates).
The Earth can sustain the current population levels. Imagine we decrease those, at what point do we stop?
The problem with malthusianism is that it doesn’t give any tangible answer to the issues it claims to solve.
First off, when do we stop that decrease? Secondly, when we reach the coveted equilibrium point, how do we stop the plundering of resources capitalists will still subject us to?
I’m not arguing for an ever-increasing demography, but I’m against a system that’s unattainable (because, even with violent rule enforcement, people will keep having kids), does not meaningfully address the issue with the plundering of terrestrial resources, and means the lower class will have to bear the brunt of the work of dealing with an aging population.
I don’t think it can sustain the current population levels, at our North American standard of living. If we could distribute resources evenly, sure, we could keep everyone alive, but energy consumption, plastic production, all that adds up to an ecological footprint of resource use that isn’t sustainable.
World wildlife levels have gone down dramatically. We’re expanding human life at the expense of all other life. The other life on earth isn’t superfluous: it’s an ecosystem that keeps us alive, recycles our waste, provides our medicines and cultural wealth of all sorts.
We can’t keep our wealthy lifestyle and at the same time tell the poor people of the world that they have to stay poor so that we can remain wealthy.
I’m not saying the north american lifestyle is sustainable. Just that planet Earth can sustain 7 billion people if things are managed a bit more efficiently.
I’m well aware that our lifestyles are causing suffering on the other side of the planet. And I solemnly condemn spoiled westerners that have the gall of telling the people they cause suffering to to stop having kids (because those faraway regions is where population levels grow the fastest).
Malthusianism, like eugenics, is half-baked. It’s surface-level ideology that offers no real answer and is more of a feeling than anything with nothing concrete to show for it. Push it to its logical conclusions, and you get to nazi-style forced sterilization and similar policies. And you still didn’t address climate change.
I mostly agree but I think we could maintain a lifestyle that is near Western levels, but done more efficiently. It wouldn’t be the same lifestyle, but it would be a good one.
I.e.
Although even with that, it would be an easier job if there is some level of population decline, but I don’t think any encouragement is needed (societies where women are highly educated tend to have declining birth rates).
These are all good measures, but I doubt they would be enough to stop the wildlife decimation.