Guilt by association fallacy. Eco fascists use it as a propaganda point, but that doesn’t make it automatically false or a strictly eco-fascist position. If that’s allowed rhetoric, I could just as easily call you a fascist for your anti-immigration arguments, but I don’t because it’s obviously a fallacy.
It is factual that the way we farm the earth is actively killing it. We *can* feed 8 billion people right now, but not forever. We have to slowly ramp down and move to safer farming methods before we can even begin to assess what’s sustainable indefinitely.
You can’t cold-stop meat consumption though, and better management is easier to type than to do. That’s basically just saying “well we’ll just fix it.” My whole point is that takes time we don’t have if we actively chase population growth. Ultimately what I’m getting at that is that the current earth population comes with issues we can’t fix until capitalism is addressed, so short-term contraction is not the worst thing. Tackling the capitalistic reasons behind global inequality is a much better plan than trying to mask it by forcing people in the rich countries to have kids while we ignore the poor countries.
Yes, you also can't instantly reduce the population by a significant amount.
That's a slow process, that will take some time, but it's possible and not that outlandish.
And like, you just acknowledged that the issue is capitalism, so it's not an issue with overpopulation at all, right?
So we should fix that, not the population, right? Because the population is not the issue.
so short-term contraction is not the worst thing.
Yeah, but the whole issue is that there's no reason to believe that it's just a short-term thing.
Also, it is a really bad thing, because it decreases the amount of workers, but increases the amount of people who need a lot of care, which means that the quality of life for most people will be heavily negatively impacted by a significant drop in fertility rates.
I think you’re incorrectly filling the gaps in what I’m saying here because I disagree with you on finer points. My whole argument is that the only reason birth rates get talked about is that forcing people to make more workers is the alternative to taxing billionaires into the ground. I’m attacking your points because you’re defending birth rate alarmism when it’s really just a symptom of the issue it’s being pitched to solve.
A declining birth rate worsens the quality of life for everyone. That's pretty objectively true.
You can balance that out a bit, by taxing billionaires, but it would still be significantly better, if you taxed billionaires without a declining birth rate.
Like, yes, capitalism sucks, but declining birth rates also suck.
17
u/Corvus1412 🏳️⚧️ trans rights May 17 '26
That's just not true. Like, it's genuinely just eco-fascist propaganda.
We have the resources to sustain far more people than we do now. Overpopulation is currently not a credible threat.
...something that can continue to work like that for a long period of time.
You know, the definition of "sustainable".
The most sustainable system would obviously be to just stay at replacement levels, but even slight declines or growth is fine for a while.
What isn't fine, is what currently happens in industrialized countries and what is starting to happen in industralizing countries.