220
Dr. Thanos, PhD. (europe.pub)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
49 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/50324858

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Personally, My interpretation of degrowth is more bicycles and less plastic crap. I don't think legislating birth rates will ever be an efficient strategy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

    It's both fewer people and less consumption.

    No one said legislating neccessarily. We're doing it now anyways. Most people have the sense that the future won't be kind to their kids and choose to jave fewer/none.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    So you're saying the degrowth movement doesn't need to do anything because people are having less kids anyway?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    No. I'm saying we don't need to be heavy handed with reproductive rights because people are making the right choices here. Some policy encouragement would be helpful, but people can be free to choose for themselves.

    We need a lot of policy work on lowering average consumption. Income inequality/poverty, planned obsalescence, right to repair, fossil fuels, food production, building codes and municipal design standards, public transit and electrification, habitat restoration, chemical and pollution regulation etc, all still need a lot of work.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah. All of that is ten times as worth the effort as worrying about birth rates.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago*

    Getting to true sustainability is increadibly difficult, let alone for the 8-10 billion people on earth. But, if you build a sustainable civilization for 2-4 billion people, it is much easier to achieve, and ypu can return a lot of land back to wilderness to allow the rest of earth's species to flourish. Its an essential component.

    Ecologists talk about it in terms of I=PAT. Impact = people x affluence x technology. If you cut the number of people, everything becomes easier.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent