🚨I'm seeing some climate accounts posting overpopulation stuff, so I've removed the paywall from my article on the subject: Overpopulation Is A Racist Trope.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
It doesn't help how much of an accepted thing it is to say, either. Many people can get away with casually saying "there are too many humans alive". I remember after Infinity War came out actively reminding people that agreeing with Thanos was actually very bad and stupid
We’re below replacement levels in all but some of the poorest countries so, even if we are overpopulated, it seems like the problem is taking care of itself.
Side note: the we’re-not-making-enough-babies crowd is virulently racist.
Yes, the “white people are dying out” narrative parallels the “everyone needs to care about population levels” narrative.
So if they had their way, I’d have a white baby, not raise it because I’m queer, but wait a minute, I also shouldn’t have kids for being autistic… they’re all over the place.
I'm not a racist but believe that overpopulation is one of many contributory factors to an unsustainable planet of excessive consumption, waste & #ClimateChaos, including exodus from uninhabitable regions, & that your headline is an offensive simplification. It dissuades me from reading the article.
This is a bit of misdirection, as overpopulation isn’t primarily a climate problem but a resource problem: the planet only has so much farmable land and fresh water and rare materials to support modern technology. The planet DOES have a carrying capacity, and we’re nearing it.
(It’s true that even though we’re nearing the planet’s carrying capacity… we are likely headed into a negative population growth period as it is. People like Elon Musk are stoking fears of a population COLLAPSE, which is silly. The world would be just fine with only 5-6bn. As it was before.)
agree ... except as we learn more ... we see that we are already well past carrying capacity (technology has dampened our sense of this, but the unsustainable situation will show itself if we don't degrow quickly and ethically)
Dr. William J Ripple, Distinguished Professor at Oregon State University; Director of the Alliance of World Scientists, LEAD AUTHOR "World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency" -
It might not be the cause of climatic change, but there are other problems. Earth's resources are stretched thin already. And in some 50 years we'll run out of farming land due to its destruction by intensive farming and the real fun will begin. A growing system can't exist in limited space forever.
YES. There's also this terrific piece by @mattomildenberger.bsky.social that I use when talking/teaching about the racist origins of the overpopulation/depopulation rhetoric in Hardin's essay on the tragedy of the commons
Thanks for making this available. There is a gem there that I think we don’t want to think about- mining for this phone and for EVs and more. It’s like the old argument of friends that they were more cool and chill bc they used weed. It was illegal then and people were dying for that chill vibe. 1/2
And nowhere do I see an argument that we in wealthy countries should buy less, consume less, turn the heat down. We just want to consume at the same level, with a substitute for fossil fuel driving the same lifestyle. Perhaps we need to live more like the poorest, with their low carbon footprint.
Clearly the most important shift here is the cultural one: as a civilization we have to move on from the idea that we absolutely have to gobble up more and more.
But no one in the world should live like the poorest.
Capitalism has to be dismantled. It is fundamentally a system of resource exploitation and over consumption. We need very little to be happy and satisfied with life. Culture does that alone.
The Aspen Proposal suggests that the long term, stable human population should be about 1 billion (and we think the rest of the family would agree). Achievable in 2-5 centuries if the current trend toward smaller families continues. https://www.aspenproposal.org
The lifestyle of the developed world consumes a lot of resources, and rate of consumption sustains our 'quality of life'.
I'd like rough parity in quality of life for all humans. Can the resources of the globe sustain a population of 10 billion at the consumption rate of the developed world? 1/
If the answer's yes, then hooray. But if the answer's no, then we have to consider some follow on questions. Firstly, do we accept a lower standard of living in order for everybody to have rough parity? If the answer to that question is yes, then the 10 billion figure isn't a problem. 2/
But if the answer's no, then we need to consider how many people can earth's resources support at the developed world's standard of living. I don't see how population can be divorced from the discussion. 3/
I don't want only people in the already-developed world (ie the colonial powers) to have this standard of living. I want every human being to have the best standard of living our economy can support, and I want it to improve as our technology improves. 4/
I don't want anybody's standard of living to drop, partly for selfish reasons and partly because it would be politically impossible. I want a high standard of living for all humans. If earth can't support that standard for 10 billion, then it follows we lower either the standard or the 10 B. 5/
You're assuming that more consumption = better life. This is the false assumption that must be dismantled if we're to build an equitable world on a habitable planet.
You'll need to unpack that. I'm not saying you're wrong (in fact I hope you're right), but it's a huge call when the history of last 200 years has seen quality of life improved by intensified use of resources, particularly energy.
When you have people like Musk lamenting the decrease in global population, and he struts around with 12 kids of his own, I wonder if there is going to be a change in birth control use for women in the US. Many women & men are opting to get laparoscopies & vasectomies' before 2025.
Alright, I'll provide a dissenting voice (but not really).
The middle class in China and India account for a good portion of their rising emissions. If they account for 25% of the population, this represents 710 million people. Arguably, their collective emissions will bust the global carbon budget
This argument is valid, but, as you pointed out, emissions from the super-rich also account for a large proportion of the carbon budget (how much is debatable, but it is large)
I don't blame Chinese or Indian people from wanting the same things that Europeans or North Americans want. Our problem is
I might reframe your question as, how do we have a (1) home, and access to transport. Global North expectations of what is a prosperous life are not equitable or sustainable.
1. There was a notable boom in housing starts in China (1997-2020)
2. Both China and India are developing a large domestic car industry (BYD, Tata Motors)
3. Outbound tourism is booming in both China and India. India is developing the largest airplane fleet in the world
By this evidence, I see that the Chinese and India middle classes want the same as the European and North American ones. We could also inquire about Indonesia and Brazil to see if it is also the case, but there is already ample support for my position.
For perspective on what it takes to be considered "global rich." If you're single with no children and your after-tax income is $63k, you're the 1%. At $20,400, you're the 10%.
That’s a lot of frames within frames for some undergrad level sketching of the demographic shift. So everyone wants to use any small chunk O data for own agenda, a tennis volley of rhetoric till one side gets (quickly) bored.
Overpopulation is used by racists who are often climate change deniers but talking about overpopulation in itself is not racist & it's ridiculous to state it is. In saying that much of what you say is true. Climate change is a very complex subject & is not just down to how much fossil fuels we use.
Anyway, human population growth will drop off "naturally" towards the end of this century due to climate catastrophe and all the endocrine-disrupting chemicals we've dumped into the environment.
This isn't true at all. It's because people have fewer children as they're educated. World education is going up therefore people are having fewer children.
Yes, educated people have fewer children. And also what I said is true, if you keep up with science news. We have another 75 years until the end of the century, remember? By then, according to 86% of climate experts, the av. global temp. will be at least 2° higher with all the problems that entails.
It's colonialist and racist to apply cultural relativism to the prevailing mysogyny that devalues girls' education & forces them to marry young. The key to reducing high birth rates that harm girls' and women's health is to invest in their education & fund microlending for their econ. independence.
Come on! I can't believe I'm hearing this. Of course we can't keep doubling the world population every 40-50 years. Yes, the West overconsumes but on the local level in poorer countries, a cultural emphasis on large families regardless of the means to support them fuels a spiral of suffering.
What do people in Africa think when someone in the West talks about overpopulation being the main problem?
⏰ Moral licensing is the root cause of overshoot consumption. Lying to ourselves that we are worth more than poor people far away. Classic Adolf Eichmann https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licensing
It's both. The food of 1bn white people destroys the lives of 5-7 billion brown and black people... Livestock, the ownership of other beings who feel & think like we do, is only possible by degrading lives into objects. This is the root of racism and oppression https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/06/03/meat-the-slavery-of-our-time/
Adolf Eichmann explains the root of racism well. It is lying to ourselves that we are better than other humans and animals. Then, we also assume that others lie about 'equality'.
If you are an affluent person in a developed country, the biggest positive impact you can have on the climate as an individual, is to not have children (who will likely also be affluent and live in the same country)
Maybe that should be called something other than overpopulation but it’s there
From a biosphere perspective, humans are an invasive species that significantly disrupts wildlife habitats, drives countless species to extinction, and degrades ecosystems on a large scale. Human overpopulation poses a serious challenge to all living organisms on Earth, including humanity itself.
We often believe we are immune to the laws of nature, but we are not. Rapidly growing populations inevitably face collapse due to disease and famine. Humanity has set the stage for such a scenario by altering the planet through climate change, & encroaching on habitats teeming w/zoonotic viruses.
Human overpopulation has created conditions that promote the transmission of zoonotic viruses to us. COVID-19, a bat virus, is a grim warning of what could lie ahead. If COVID-19 had a lethality rate of 50%, by the time effective vaccines were developed, billions could have already lost their lives.
This drives me a little nuts. Humans are in the middle of an extremely ecologically abnormal population boom. Climate change is just one of a zillion ways we are ravaging the planet. It has to be possible to find anti-racist and anti-fascist ways to discuss this.
Right wing ethnonationalists in France and Japan and India are all clamoring for more babies and setting policy to encourage fertility and "combat the falling birth rate". We should be fighting that with calls to ease immigration restrictions and use the money to support the children we have now
Yeah almost every way of discussing this is more useful than the way that Dave raised it ... but at least we are now writing about equity and overpopulation and ... future human suffering and perhaps extinction. Thus, I guess the effects of absurd posts are not all bad.
I dunno. I feel like a lot of left-leaning people have been scared off ever mentioning human population growth because people immediately think you're into eugenics. It makes doing any sort of thoughtful advance planning really hard.
Yeah - I would bet that some potion of the support for this knee jerk reaction is coming from economists and capitalists who can't think beyond GDP thinking. For them, carrying capacity and overpopulation are inconvenient truths.
too not be "overpopulated", you have the ruling class, and just enough death of lower class due to ill treatment, to support the ruling class. US has children working in slaughtering plants. The ruling class wants everyone else to disappear and die.
What is a sustainable population level on a finite planet with finite resources? Bearing in mind global biodiversity halves, and human population doubles, approximately every forty years?
Totally get the point that 'rich west' is the major contributor to climate change. But you're pitting one truth against another. Both global population and wealth inequality are real problems, but not directly opposed in your framing of one against the other. IMO.
Which bit? Cos we have actually lost half of earths topsoil since the industrial revolution. And it takes 500-1000 years for nature to restore 1 inch of new topsoil.
You paying attention or simply hoping for the best?
Important reminder: The climate crisis isn't about 'overpopulation'—it's about overconsumption and inequity. Blaming the Global South diverts us from holding major polluters accountable. Let's focus on real solutions. 🌍
I won't name and shame (in this instance) because I think there are a lot of people who still aren't aware of the problematic nature of the overpopulation narrative. We need to educate.
It must be painful pointing out the obvious and getting demonized for it.
Honestly, I thought all of the people who didn’t care about the planet were those on the right. But so many on the left have made it clear they will gladly kill the planet before entertaining the thought of moderation.
Human activity being a biosphere ending threat? Or that it is obvious that it isn’t just the rich (who shouldn’t even exist) who need to practice moderation?
As someone who is in the 1.6 to 4.9 tonne range (bottom left), I can relate to half of the people in the world who shouldn't feel that the climate crisis is their fault.
Lots of ways… here’s a jarring example. There are 10m motorboats averaging something like 2mpg in the US. Assuming just 100 hours of use/yr at 25kn. is 1250 gallons or 10 tons of Co2. Motorboats are pushing up the average for everyone.
Chart is deceptive because of the number of people in those groupings, and the causes. Jets are the #1 cause of the super rich. Luxuries like Pickup trucks and sports cars are the emissions of the poor.
Overpopulation isn't just about climate change emissions and over consumption by the rich. There's no discussion in this article of the impact of food production on wildlife habitats or over fishing decimating fish stocks - both linked to the need to feed billions of humans on this planet.
Your point maybe true but it's still the case that humans are using half of the world's habitable land for agriculture. That land was previously habitat for other species.
Exactly. Other species exist on this planet, and need resources for their survival. We’re squeezing them out of existence. This planet does not belong to humans.
The people who think they own this planet are the capitalists and colonialists. They're the ones saying it's impossible to act any differently. They are wrong.
Different issues in rich and poor countries.
Tons of research, see refs in UNEP's Global Food Waste 2024 linked up-thread, FAO's reports and PubMed for single countries, e.g. India https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10746588/
The UN says
"The data confirms that food waste is not just a ‘rich country’ problem, with levels of household food waste differing in observed average levels for high-income, upper-middle, and lower-middle-income countries by just 7 kg per capita."
A lot of that food is being grown in monocultures where the natural habitat has been cleared/destroyed using fertilisers and chemicals that further degrade the environment.
Poor farmers might be in the majority but that doesn't mean they produce the majority of the world's food. All agriculture is loss of habitat though small scale organic is usually less destructive.
yeah, and corporations impose those practices for profit. if people could still survive by using their traditional practices, this would not be a problem.
This is the uncomfortable truth; that many in western economies, who wouldn't consider themselves rich use too much of the world's resources. Help to insulate homes, eating less meat, flying and buying less, decent public transport can all help without impacting quality of life.
the trick is people will buy and use what is available. Better insulation is a big one definitely, but in terms of food, air travel and transit those are infrastructure issues
Both statement are true, I think. We are the ones using the resources, even if we have very few power to change this matter of fact. We cannot really, as individuals, change the context we live in, which in turn defines our needs. But we still do use these resources.
I do (partially) agree with you, that was just a comment on how to read this graph. I should pinpoint that if we can't really weight on this system on an individual level, we are still its primary beneficiaries.
its important to consider that the massive gains in renewable energy are being largely eaten up by Stupid Bullshit like crypto and AI and its a stretch to say anybody is the beneficiary of those
(well, I would say crypto and AI users are the beneficiaries, even if the benefits do indeed looks quite doubtful to me, and are severely outpassed by the costs in my opinion)
Does it make sense that increasing the population of the west, e.g. up to 1 billion people for America and 100 million for Canada, as leaders and pundits such as Matthew Yglesias have suggested is desireable, would be bad for the environment?
i.e. if 4 earths would be needed for everyone on the planet to maintain western living standards, by having more westerners we're ratcheting up the pressure on resources?
1 - It is not contradictory mith my statement, which was just a precision about the graph.
2 - These are values per capita. If you consider the fact that 90-99,9% are 100 time more numerous than this 0,1 %, you can conclude their (our) contribution is NOT negligible.
3 - These are figures for the USA. Most of the people represented in this graph would be part of the 10% in the other, worldwide, one, anyway. 10% of the world population is 800 millions people. This is not just the millionnaires... this is the common westerner. Sorry if you just realised.
4 - I am not, in any way, contradicting the main assertion of this thread. I do believe that blaming "overpopulation" is racist and blame-shifting. But we have to look at the full picture which is : it is not only mega-rich people, it is just "normally rich" people aka "the west".
Of course I should say that you are spot on when you note how the rich are bringing grave harm to the poor, but we ignore overpopulation at our own peril.
Here's the thing: if you can convince anyone that overpopulation is a problem, you then must propose a solution. And the only non-psychotic solution is economic empowerment with equitable redistribution. Which is already a necessary condition for avoiding 9x boundary transgression.
I also like how you frame overpopulation as a symptom of other issues, but that doesn't mean the symptom won't kill us. I guess I'm just saying we need encourage equitable and thoughtful degrowth. Accusations of racism are harmful and counterproductive.
I agree with a lot of that, with added emphasis on the women's empowerment piece (since it is so well studied and is just) ... but the racism accusation is way out of bounds.
I have to disagree. I don't claim to know what people think when they talk about overpopulation, but it must not be taboo to say things that economists don't want to hear. I think acknowledging the biology and physics means there is no scientific defense for ignoring overpopulation.
It reads as if you are trying to ignore biology & physics. Economics is an optional human game, but biology & physics are not. There is a difference between planned degrowth and collapse, but this is the choice. We move closer to collapse when we stifle the science. Take a look at the links.
I'm saying that these are the known and established boundaries that we've breached through overpopulation. More cryptic breaches are being discovered everyday. We can keep ignoring the obvious or we can care for future generations ... by encouraging rather than stifling work on equitable degrowth.
No. These are the boundaries we've breached via specific activities carried out principally by a small minority of humans. Are you familiar with the capitalocene?
Poverty and the bad behavior of the rich and their corporations clearly make things much much worse, but excess population is central. This can be addressed in many ways ... but empowering young women with education (especially in low income settings) lowers birth rates without coercion.
Great piece, thank you! Even in liberal Canada, we have a massive anti-immigration campaign going on -- tons of conservatives and liberals alike claiming “too many people” are coming here from poor countries.
“Why so poor?” I ask, “Why don’t we then help improve them so people stay?”
Crickets 🫤
It's not about race Dave, it's about sustainability & a good standard of living for everyone everywhere. I don't care what colour humans are, I just want them to survive & thrive on a planet rich with biodiversity. Woman everywhere must be able to choose whether or not to have children & how many.
I will probably read, but what was your findings for why Carbon Emissions fell 25% during the Mongolian Empire’s massacre of 15% of the world’s population? Modern warfare creates pollution, but we have a lot of records from periods of slaughter that suggest population control does affect warming.
It is the problem with percents and averages. While all people should be equal they are not the same. And also pre-industrial society is different from recent industrial (and post-industrial) societies. So it depends on which part of "population" you talk about.
Hence why I brought in the concept of pollution from war. That being said, post industrial society is more marginally averaged in consumption and pollution than any other society. We all run the same devices and use the same trash, reigned in by the size of the can.
Yes, but it can also sustain and feed 15,000 people. Not all aspects of management can be done over a Facetime. If we had high speed rail, that might buffer some excess executive pollution. Then you have to consider the cost of the rail system. Productivity vs Efficiency
I agree with a lot of this piece, but I do not agree that ecofascism, as it were, is motivated by misanthropy. It’s motivated by neoeugenics: great replacement theory, fertility rate pseudoscience, etc. The real danger is not antinatalism, but white natalism.
Yes! This has been one of the key criticisms of my bit - and I think I stupidly assumed people would simply recognise it's the other side of the same coin.
The curse of being a little bit on the spectrum: never knowing exactly what's considered common knowledge vs weird specialisms, exactly what's considered an obvious logical deduction vs a weird reach.
This is ridiculous. Species are going extinct. The number of members of others are declining. People are dying from climate disruption disasters & lower income people are more vulnerable. Larger population leads to higher housing costs.
Starship Troopers was notable as NPH’s first “adult” role. The book was an unironic defense of militarism as necessary for full citizenship but the director (same guy who did Robocop) basically said “yeah that’s pretty fascist” and made it a satire.
Too many white people is too many white people. Farms get sold to corporations, produce gets shipped to other countries, people make too much but it's not getting everyone except the rich. Get rid of some white people at the top, how about that?
Recently learned about the “Mouse Utopia” study that gets cited over and over to explain social unrest, but it’s really just a way of “science-washing” what Tories see as degeneracy.
Dave, I think you would benefit from watching this interview with Professor Bill Rees. Identifying overpopulation as a problem is not racist, but somehow that's always the go-to allegation people come up with when they don't want to acknowledge it.
Well, you're mistaken, but that's how people like you always like to characterize it, just to shut down debate on the subject. Please open your mind a wee bit on this subject. Watch the interview with Bill Rees. Tell me where he is wrong.
No one disputes that data. But to label any mention of overpopulation as "racist" or "colonial" is deliberately designed to shut down any debate about it. Let's have disagreements in good faith.
But here's the part I don't think you get ... how does this end? Ecologists say: not well.
thank you infinitely, will repost this forever. the amount of malignant ideology certain billionaires & ruling class politicians spread about overpopulation is terrible
Post-Cairo conference, this has shifted thanks to pressure from women’s rights groups, but too often this thinking creeps back in. But, access to family planning is a right(even for poor women), and the racism of some shouldn’t confuse us on that point.
Human overpopulation is real and it is among the core causes of climate and ecological destruction. Ethical approaches to address it should be part of any honest environmental action plan. If we don't reduce our numbers voluntarily, they will
collapse catastrophically.
It's biophysical reality, dude. If it hadn't been for fossil fuels we'd never have reached these numbers. Learn to think in terms of material, energy, and ecological realities.
I almost wonder if those calling "racism" are just economists in disguise, trying to promote the status quo and GDP thinking ... trying to discredit the people asking all groups to lower their birth rates as ethically as possible.
Thanks Aashis. It is good to know that common sense exists on this thread. I made some replies about the peril of ignoring biology and phyics ... and somebody told me that this thinking was racist. Glad that person knew what I was thinking and felt comfortable spreading that hunch to all. 😅
I see the same reactions whenever overpopulation is brought up. It's a sequence of labels, all designed to shut down debate on the subject. First you get "racism" then "colonialism" then "Malthusian" and finally "eugenics." Our friend Willard @climateball.net went straight to eugenics.
If doesn't work for contrarians, there's no reason for doomers to expect room service by constantly harping about stuff that is far from being helpful.
Yes, and totally onboard with this as it also leads to reduced vulnerability and improvements in societal outcomes. However, how will that lead to significant reductions in near term emissions?
It won't. The reductions will have to come from reducing consumption overall, especially by wealthy nations and classes. But it's a biophysical truth that the world is overpopulated with humans, both rich countries and poor.
Who are the "we" in this debate? London is clogged by "humvees". Who decided that electric cars are the solution to urban transport? People queue for food banks. Not because there is a food shortage but because prices are too high/incomes too low. Who ordered this?
Yes, high consumption is the bane of the world not “over-population”. I say this as the mother of three grown-ups who are super aware of climate, ecology and consumption.
Interesting read I’ve always thought the world is getting overpopulated because I saw that population had doubled from 4-8 million in the last 50 years & was worried about future growth but someone shared that all estimates show global population is expected to soon start decreasing
Not a racism thing I saw it as a reason why countries like Britain with an aging population should be in favour of immigration for a youthful population to avoid a pension crisis
And somehow population decline worries are a racist trope as well... probably because both are just sublimated worries about your own group declining compared to others rather than real preferences for what size the total population should be
Fully agree. Also important to acknowledge that too many people's environmentalism (especially when it's about nature conservation) is inherently anti- human. There's a need to promote a positive human role in the natural world.
Case in point: the number of ppl on this thread who call humans parasites, invasive species, etc. Being anti-human reveals an incredibly shallow knowledge of human history and species interaction. It’s also, inevitably, a genocidal position.
Yeah. I've certainly found myself thinking humans are inherently a problem many times, but when I start thinking "so what do we do now", you start to look at how to involve humans in solving those global problems. Also, I remember that the worst people are attracted to the genocidal stuff.
We have created a totally anthropocentric society that has up till now never questioned our right to pillage the earth's resources to satisfy our every whim. So I find refreshing the environmentalist view that we're not the center of the universe. It's not anti-human. It's anti-delusion.
I disagree with your thesis that overpopulation is no problem. It obviously is. You just have to go outside on a smoggy day caused by too many people in cars.
Or just visit anywhere. There ARE too many people, and saying that that is a problem isn't racist. I accept the argument about consumption, the way it's framed, possibly is racist. But there are too many people. Period.
Great article. Does remind me of Protestant attitudes to the large families of Catholics, even here in Australia, even as recently as the 1970s (and probably in some quarters still). It was then, & is still, useful for the rich to convince us that the poor having large families is the problem.
I respect that you don't want to name and shame individuals but the 'think tank' types are fair game in my view. This links to a mini debate I had with one such account.
“Look, we’ve taken a look at your overpopulation theory, and once we analysed the results of individual pollution rates, we can be sorted if we do away with anyone who uses a private jet. That’ll work for you guys won’t it?”
Well said. The population issue is a symptom of economic inequality and detracts from the true issues affecting the climate. We definitely need to get population growth under control. But that can easily be done with a few mindset changes.
If all goes according to Hoyle, the US is about to become a petri dish for eugenic policies. Mass deportation, forced births, religious indoctrination, even invading Mexico, are all part of the plan.
It's population x overconsumption. The graph shows which of both is dominant. The solution is easy but it won't come.
I have a suspicion where the overpopulation tale comes from....
This is a false dichotomy. Overpopulation and overconsumption are both environmental issues. It's not one or the other. Shutting down conversation about these topics using emotive language such as racist and bizzare is not helpful.
It's population size in relation to means and resources, not only emissions. Looking at it that way will see a lot of places become completely unliveable. Overconsumption in the West: different discourse.
Potato diet isn’t all that’s necessary to sustain nutrition, and sustenance isn’t the only contributing factor to excessive pollution. For every new person on earth, another vehicle, living space, communication device, laundering services, clothing, and most importantly: Water.
All of which consume water and staples’s resources, doesn’t solve basic modern needs, and probably also ignores environmental responsibility to other animals, the ecosystem. We are inefficient with water right now.
The only time the word fascist appears in the article is in referencing the title of another work at the very end, which makes me suspect you haven't read the article and don't know what the argument is.
people who center their politics around overpopulations are either:
acting out personal feelings of depression in uncomfortable ways or have a specific list of which groups there are too many of, you know the ones.
Oh god, how often have we been here before, and from way before Malthus and his feeble-minded adherents emerged? Women’s’ education and improved neonatal/juvenile healthcare are already dropping the birth rate - an estimate of 2030 seems plausible as the tipping point https://www.science.org/content/article/population-tipping-point-could-arrive-2030
Isn't the lesson of IPAT that population, per-capita impacts, and their growth rates are all important (and influence each other)? The figure is a bit confusing but shows different cases of low/med/high emissions and low/med/high population growth. China, US, India similar in this metric.
Thanks for this. It’s a difficult trope to unlearn. I definitely remember taking Malthus very seriously in high school and having wealthy parents who were all-in on that narrative.
While the tragedy of the commons is an important idea to understand, overpopulation isn’t the threat. Greed is.
Comments
🫠
Side note: the we’re-not-making-enough-babies crowd is virulently racist.
There are robust and just solutions we should embrace instead of whatever Dave typed.
So if they had their way, I’d have a white baby, not raise it because I’m queer, but wait a minute, I also shouldn’t have kids for being autistic… they’re all over the place.
They are committed to this lie
https://twitter.com/WilliamJRipple/status/1438270425276968962
David Attenborough, keeps getting away with his Malthusian racism, dressed up as environmentalism.
But no one in the world should live like the poorest.
I'd like rough parity in quality of life for all humans. Can the resources of the globe sustain a population of 10 billion at the consumption rate of the developed world? 1/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800922003597?via%3Dihub
The middle class in China and India account for a good portion of their rising emissions. If they account for 25% of the population, this represents 710 million people. Arguably, their collective emissions will bust the global carbon budget
I don't blame Chinese or Indian people from wanting the same things that Europeans or North Americans want. Our problem is
How do we have a house or car or travel without a large carbon footprint? How do we live prosperously without a large carbon footprint?
That's the problem we must solve.
1. There was a notable boom in housing starts in China (1997-2020)
2. Both China and India are developing a large domestic car industry (BYD, Tata Motors)
3. Outbound tourism is booming in both China and India. India is developing the largest airplane fleet in the world
Will it be sustainable? I doubt it.
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i
https://bsky.app/profile/nonviolence.bsky.social/post/3lce74vx6hs2k
⏰ Moral licensing is the root cause of overshoot consumption. Lying to ourselves that we are worth more than poor people far away. Classic Adolf Eichmann
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licensing
The argument "overpopulation" only justifies ongoing #colonialism aka 🐄
https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/10/03/eu-commission-proposes-delay-anti-deforestation-law
But, it's not racist.
Is it time to reconsider the idea of ‘the banality of evil’?
https://theconversation.com/is-it-time-to-reconsider-the-idea-of-the-banality-of-evil-216737
Richard Dawkins: ‘When I see cattle lorries, I think of the railway wagons to Auschwitz’
https://www.thetimes.com/article/when-i-see-cattle-lorries-i-think-of-the-railway-wagons-to-auschwitz-m3t0hntmk
Maybe that should be called something other than overpopulation but it’s there
2024: 8+ BILLION PEOPLE.
It's not racist it's EXPONENTIAL ROCKET SHIP GROWTH.
-- ECOLOGY 101.
(Posted before RTA, which I shall now do).
Current earth farmland = 4.8bil hectare
With current farming practices, all potatoes, we can feed about 80bil people.
Population is projected to peak at 10bil.
Malthusianism is fascist degeneracy.
I can't understand people being so self assured about the future that they dismiss stuff that terrifies the actual experts.
But rock on Dusty.
You paying attention or simply hoping for the best?
Honestly, I thought all of the people who didn’t care about the planet were those on the right. But so many on the left have made it clear they will gladly kill the planet before entertaining the thought of moderation.
https://bsky.app/profile/andrewlfanning.bsky.social/post/3lc6tzo66vc2x
https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/food-waste-index-report-2024
It's a choice between behavioural changes or mass death. I don't see how the latter is preferable.
And that pattern definitely hasn't been true for me. I'm a lot better off than I was in my 20s and I've also stopped eating meat entirely.
Tons of research, see refs in UNEP's Global Food Waste 2024 linked up-thread, FAO's reports and PubMed for single countries, e.g. India https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10746588/
"The data confirms that food waste is not just a ‘rich country’ problem, with levels of household food waste differing in observed average levels for high-income, upper-middle, and lower-middle-income countries by just 7 kg per capita."
#CarbonTunnelVision
https://ourworldindata.org/smallholder-food-production
https://carboncopy.info/dual-dilemma-agriculture-in-india-suffering-from-and-contributing-to-biodiversity-loss/
Poor farmers have no alternative, in sub-Sahara Africa for instance fertilizers cost much more than in the EU or the US.
2002 figures 🔽, now worsened by unending armed conflicts
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1065256
Billionaires and millionaires using up more resources than entire developing countries.
It’s excessive consumerism we need to contain, not people.
2 - These are values per capita. If you consider the fact that 90-99,9% are 100 time more numerous than this 0,1 %, you can conclude their (our) contribution is NOT negligible.
You are claiming that MLK, and Einstein, and Kofi Annan, and the many, many, many others on this list are using a racist trope.
https://populationmatters.org/quotes/
“Why so poor?” I ask, “Why don’t we then help improve them so people stay?”
Crickets 🫤
Overpopulation:
“too many black people our country will just become poor”
Pro natalism:
“white people should have more children”
Huh, sounds like a @yourkickstartersucks.com ep title.
Ok to mute.
Starship Troopers was notable as NPH’s first “adult” role. The book was an unironic defense of militarism as necessary for full citizenship but the director (same guy who did Robocop) basically said “yeah that’s pretty fascist” and made it a satire.
Plus:
Why, I don't believe I've ever read an article that spans the range...tropes, misanthropes, catastrophes!
Anyone not wanting to carry or spread right-wing messages might want to educate themselves a little more too. 👇🏼
https://bsky.app/profile/giantwhispers.bsky.social/post/3l772ltfpzu24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MVmkIYy9aI
We can’t all do that, but we can have drastically more people living low carbon lifestyles having far less impact than they did.
But here's the part I don't think you get ... how does this end? Ecologists say: not well.
collapse catastrophically.
Except for the fact that laying off employees is not eugenicist.
And who's talking about eugenics?
And you are.
https://climateball.net/but-debate-me/
https://climateball.net/but-denier/
If doesn't work for contrarians, there's no reason for doomers to expect room service by constantly harping about stuff that is far from being helpful.
Some arguments for population reduction are racist, but that does not mean that all arguments for population reduction are racist.
You might even be able to burn gas at that population level.
But, the world SHIPS EVERYTHING with OIL.
https://swalesmetroprof.blog/2023/08/18/the-population-conundrum/
:)
I have a suspicion where the overpopulation tale comes from....
I would argue that habitat destruction is mainly moved by wealthiest individuals and wealthiest nations, not population at large.
Current earth farmland = 4.8bil hectare
With current farming practices, all potatoes, we can feed about 80bil people.
Population is projected to peak at 10bil.
Malthusianism is fascist degeneracy.
They're not incorrect about Malthus being wildly wrong and mostly popular with eugenicists and eventually fascists, though.
acting out personal feelings of depression in uncomfortable ways or have a specific list of which groups there are too many of, you know the ones.
While the tragedy of the commons is an important idea to understand, overpopulation isn’t the threat. Greed is.
Wondering if it’s concerted population-washing to keep everyone’s eyes on each other instead of the extractive and polluting industries.
Current earth farmland = 4.8bil hectare
With current farming practices, all potatoes, we can feed about 80bil people. Population is projected to peak at 10bil.
Malthusianism is fascist degeneracy.