this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
269 points (81.4% liked)

Political Memes

5483 readers
2520 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

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 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

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 -2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

US population is only growing due to immigration. Birth rates are well below replacement rate.

https://www.axios.com/2024/04/25/us-births-drop-2023

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

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 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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 2 points 3 weeks 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 -3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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 -1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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.

[–] manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

population control is just advocating for eugenics

[–] Emerald@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

They aren't advocating for population control, they are advocating for individuals to make their own decisions wisely.

Edit: Nevermind. https://lemmy.world/comment/13130336

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 weeks ago
[–] nexguy@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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.