I know how it works, thank you 😚

I like how you're making excuses for something that it is very clear in context. I thought AI was great at picking up context?

Beware folks, Ai WiLl TaKE yEr JoOOoObS

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.

The universe is very much certain with or without humans.

And yet, people did not stop having babies, which is what the person that started this thread asked people for.

I'm not advocating for eternal growth. But the malthusians claim the population should be smaller without telling you how smaller or how to reach the objective. It's candid ideology that's not very different from eugenics if brought to its logical conclusion. They tell you some will suffer, but they don't tell you who and how. The answer is of course: some poor schmuck that's not them.

And they fail to realize that, even after the population's been reduced, we'd still suffer from the same issues we're facing now because population reduction didn't address the real issue, which is capitalism.

It's a reasonable explanation. But China is still one of the most populated contries on Earth.

People are not not having kids because of contraceptives, but because they can't afford them anymore. It is a luxury older people have enjoyed, but that just isn't realistically achievable anymore.

Give them a more certain future, they will start having more babies again.

That's precisely what I accuse malthusianist solutions of 👌

Good luck telling people not to have kids. China's tried that already.

This is what we hate boomers for. Short-termism. How about we start being angry at the right culprits? Your peers in the West aren't having kids anymore already.

People can do all that, but you will still have population growth and climate change, which you want to fix. That, and an aging population. How about we stop for advocating for known non-solutions and fix the actual problem already?

And it doesn't work, either. When they tell you we need half the population, they don't tell you how to reach that objective, when the objective is considered to be achieved.

They might recognize that some people will have to suffer, but they don't tell you who will suffer and how.

Malthusianism is yet another unclear ideology that offers vague promises but assured hardships from dilettantes that are spared enough to not feel the full weight of capitalism.

Nothing that stands rigorous scrutiny.

Says who? Who needs half the population? To what end?

C'est vraiment mon gros souci avec ça. Ils répandent de la désinformation, et se vantent de leurs campagnes de harcèlement qui tirent dans le tas de manière indiscriminée (cf thedunktank), en plus de leurs appels à la haine et leur défense des impérialismes qui ne sont pas celui de l'occident.

Then fix that first instead of delaying it. Climate change is more directly caused by capitalism than it is caused by natalism. It's easier to (proverbially) eat the rich than it is to tell people to stop having the children you need to wipe your grandparent's ass.

Thanks for clearing that up!

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.

It does. They meant to use the slur, but recognized that it is problematic. Does that make them a fascist or fascist-adjacent in your opinion?