590
I can see nothing wrong with this. (europe.pub)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
189 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 15 points 1 month ago (12 children)

I'm not arguing for population growth but we definitely have more than enough resources for everyone now. Scarcity isn't the problem, it's that we allow people to hoard those resources and we waste a ton of them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    When we can prove it by providing everyone the same (good) standard of life, across the entire world, then I'll believe it.

    Stuff like everyone has housing, clean safe water, safe to eat food, able to escape from extreme climate swings, healthcare, vacation, parental leave, and I'm sure lots more that I'm not thinking of.

    Once everyone has that, then we can look at what we can expand on

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

    We will never have that as long as we live in a capitalist society

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    literallt just this.

    Capitalism DEMANDS Unequal Exchange. Notnonly to poor workers in The Global South get less of what they work for but also people in thr global north get less of their labour and its funneled to the billionaires. THIS is probably the most important issue in the world today other than Climste Change. THATS why I named myself this.

    Jason Hickel et al. publisjhed two studies that you can find on Sci-Hub for free that talks about this. ALso Torkil Lauessen has a free audio bool on youtuibe titled 'Unequal Exchange' where he talks about just this issue.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    "We have enough resources" is such a shitty god damned argument. At least you didn't go "hurr durr everyone on the planet can fit in Manhattan if they just squeeze tightly".

    But god damned ask yourself what kind of world you want to live in, not min maxxing the number of people alive for some absolutely incomprehensible reason.

    "WE CAN SQUEEZE ONE MORE IN THERE, BOYS! SHE CAN TAKE IT!"

    For WHAT?! WHY?!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    everyone on the planet can fit in Manhattan if they just squeeze tightly

    But god damned ask yourself what kind of world you want to live in, not min maxxing the number of people alive for some absolutely incomprehensible reason.

    Totally with you on these points. Having lived in NYC it is my conception of ultra-urban hell. Sure, there are worse places. Cairo comes to mind. But this idea that we just have to warehouse people to keep them from having massive sprawling impact on the planet is absolutely the most wrong way to think about it, IMO. I hate when people argue that if we just tighten our belts and accept a lower standard of living, everyone can be accommodated with low environmental impact. I go the other way: if there were few enough people (and hoarding/profiteering was curtailed), beachfront and slopeside real estate would be cheap.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Did I miss something? You said it is a "shitty" argument, but you never state what is wrong with it.

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

    Not me, but I think that the fundamental argument is quality / quantity.

    The quantity side aligns with capitalism and growth for the sake of growth. More consumers. More labor. Supporting the top-heavy aging populace (admittedly a problem) by whatever means necessary. Quantity is an argument favoring people not yet born, or favoring a pyramid scheme by which there needs to be an ever-expanding base of young, productive people to support the old. Nonexistent people's "wants" should not be considered in any way. If they are not born, they can not suffer. We should not consider what hypothetical people might have wanted. The elderly need to be supported, but by some other means. We cannot continue growth forever simply to support all those who came before us.

    The quality side is benefit for the existing populace. As a person who exists, it's basically the only thing I care about. I prefer my quality of life over sacrifice for the potential existence of not-yet-existent lives. I think any sane person would want there to be more quality of life for themselves and other people living. Quantity of life directly impedes this goal.

    The previous poster may not have stated the case as such, but I believe that it is self-evident.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    You people, I swear. I said specifically that I'm not arguing for increased population and yet your whole response is structured like that's exactly what I said we should do. Do you even read what you respond to or do you just scan until you find the right key word to launch into a rant?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Well if we could make everyone have a good quality of life and not destroy the environment and at the same time have more people to enjoy life and to help drive innovation and art, it would generally be for the better.

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

    I don't think you comprehend exactly how large a number 7 billion actually is. There's plenty of innovation and art potential already.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago

    Currently a good portion of those people are barely surviving and don't have bandwidth for art or effective innovation. But that's not really the point. If people are happy and have a good quality of life, and there's no negatives, then more is better because it's more happiness.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    I'm not arguing against concentration of wealth and hoarding by the ultra-rich, which is obviously a problem, but I have said recently: everyone could live like a modern-day billionaire if there were fewer people.

    Too often the argument pivots the other way and turns into: if we all eat plants, live in ultradense cities with dystopian warehousing of people, and nobody has a car, we could be in ecological harmony with 8B+ people. I don't like that angle.

    If "Westerners", or "the global North", or "developed countries" are consuming more than "our fair share" of resources while some significant fraction of the 8B+ humans are in poverty, that's not ideal. On the other hand I want my standard of living to increase, not decrease, and I find making concessions a hard sell.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent