Random
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

The world is not overpopulated

Overpopulation is a myth that's been going around since the dawn of eugenics since the entire point of it is to reduce the number of undesirable people and the undesirable people for some reason, are never of European extraction.

There is enough food, power, and materials for everybody. We live in a post-scarcity world. If a warehouse full of food cannot be sold, that food will always be thrown out rather than donated. We sprawl out our cities rather than build them up because there is so much space. Our arable land is used for luxury goods and meat.

We will literally go to another country, train and fund killers to put dictators in charge, the dictators let our corporations buy all the land, and then that land is used to grow luxury goods the locals barely see a dime from and never get to enjoy. Then we complain about them having too many kids.

If the population of the earth was half of it was right now, the amount of hunger in the world would be the same.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SW-User
The way we live could be adjusted to suit these numbers, but it won't. Either change the world order, or reduce the population.
SW-User
@SW-User oh, and you've got about 50 years to make one or the other happen before the damage we're doing to the ecosystem becomes irreparable and mother nature reduces our numbers violently rather than we doing it ourselves in a far more gentle manner...
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
@SW-User You're misdirecting the problem here. A booming population in Niger doesn't meaningfully affect the climate crisis.

The problem is squarely in the hands of those who control capital and how they operate industry, design infrastructure, and run supply chains. If the world's population started shrinking, the climate crisis would be unchanged.

1% of humanity are responsible for more emissions than an additional 50%.

This is about hoarding and wasting resources, not people in Bangladesh having too many babies. Do you honestly think if our population was shrinking we'd avert the climate crisis?
SW-User
@CountScrofula thats like saying "the cancerous tumors on the right side of your lung arent as big as the ones on the left so we're just not going to worry about those..."

Less people means less demand for power, farmland, clean water, etc.
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
@SW-User If one person demands 100x more resources than another person then you're really getting the problem wrong.

There's also the basic fact that doing shit like building trains and moving to nuclear energy and turning megayachts into scrap heaps is a hell of a lot more realistic policy wise than eliminating whatever percentage of the human population.

Like if you say we're 50 years from armageddon how many people do you need to remove from the planet to avert that? This is a fool's errand and a con artist's trick to get you to look away from the exploitation waste and towards the people who have committed the horrific crime of existing and having families.
SW-User
@CountScrofula every birth you prevent gives you a little more time to work on changing the way we do things to where perhaps such methods would no longer be necessary.

Sometimes you need to delay the issue in order to give you enough time to actually solve it.

Like braking before the turn.

It's not easy but that's life. If you refuse to make the hard choices then everyone dies whereas if you do what you must some may not get a chance to live in the short term, but in the long term many magnitudes more are afforded the opportunity to be born.