• daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Hot take. Stop making so many new people so we don’t have to live crowded like ants and destroying all our environment to provide housing.

    Just stop having so many children.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      That’s already happened. US birthrates have been below replacement rates for over a decade, and most of Europe before that.

      • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        My european country population keeps growing each years and birth/death rate while was good over some time (more death than births) is turning around once again and births are again skyrocketing.

        We only had a few sensible years of decreasing population, since 2018 aprox population is again on the rise here.

        Pretty sure US population has also being growing lately instead of decreasing as it should.

          • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            Then maybe it’s not only US and Europe the countries which should control birthrate.

            The thing is that there is too many people. Land cannot house so many. We are destroying nature just because some people insist to bring more and more and more humans to this world.

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              There’s plenty of land. Consider that in 1930, Germany had 139 people per km^2, France had something around 65 people per km^2. The US today has only 38 per km^2. But the German or French citizen in 1930 didn’t use quite so many single use plastics.

              • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                That’s pretty idiotic. We don’t have a shortage of land. We have a shortage of land within a reasonable commuting distance of job centers.

                • frezik@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  17 hours ago

                  Which is then wasted on urban sprawl and parking lots. We don’t have a land problem or an overpopulation problem. We have a sustainability problem.

              • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                Each human needs a LOT of land to live to their fullest.

                Do you want to live like in the 30s only to house more people?

                Also it’s an unsustainable point of view. If you defend letting people forever grow there’s going to be a hard natural stop to that. Because at some point nature will make you stop.

                I support a stable point of view. One billion of human beings on earth. Plenty space for us and for nature, les pollution, less emissions. Lots of chances for massive natural reserves…

                • frezik@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  1 billion people living unsustainably is still unsustainable. Birth rates in the most unsustainable countries are dropping, and this is ultimately a good thing, but it’s insufficient on its own.

                  • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 days ago

                    By simple math each of those 1 billion people should be able to live with 10 times more resources at hand that if we had 10 billion people.

                    I don’t think there’s a way to live better without resource consumption and environmental damage. So the question keeps being the same. More people living worse or less people living better.

    • nexguy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Society can handle many many more people, they just choose not to so they can have their SUVs and newest iphones.

      • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        The more humans we have the worse we will live.

        I suppose it’s a moral choice. More people living worse or less people living better.

        I prefer the later. Specially because the prize is just having less children, it’s just a small cultural change.

        I get nothing out of a crowded world where I have to be miserable just to make space for more people.

        Less people being able to live to their fullest seems the more humanist approach.