zlacker

>>onnnon+(OP)
It's taboo to say this, but people worldwide have had far too many children, and I believe that overpopulation is the root of the sustainability crisis, including climate change and pollution.

And that taboo is probably rooted in evolutionary psychology, people have a genetically driven tendency to criticize those who advocate having less children? So could there be an instinctual drive behind it?

https://www.flashpack.com/solo/relationships/dont-want-kids-...

https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/childfree-by-choice

>>127361+ox
i don't think overpopulation is the problem, but maybe it's a symptom. the problem is we've forced our way up to an unrealistically high standard of living which is completely unsustainable, and now we're trapped in an inescapable death spiral because nobody wants to go back.

people aren't willing to stop paying for conveniences because they're cheaply available, corporations aren't willing to stop selling them because there's a demand for it and money to be made, and governments aren't willing to force anybody's hand because the people and corporations will both force them out of power if they try.

there is absolutely no chance of breaking out of it other than giving up on democracy, but that will only happen when modern society collapses entirely, which will be far too late to prevent unimaginable suffering on a massive scale.

>>yungpo+DK1
Yea, yea, people making their life better is now the reason. We must all live in poverty, because that is the natural state, where we obey the needs of nature. Nature is healing!! And for that we need to abandon demoncracy.

And the leader should be who? Of course you, because only you know the solution! Cheeky ;)

>>okr+OL1
you can put your fingers in your ears and say "la la la" all you want, it doesn't change the undeniable and objective truth.

everybody knows the solution, *you* know the solution, it's just a hard pill to swallow so mental gymnastics are preferable.

as a species we know that the overconsumption of resources is the problem. there are exactly zero valid arguments against that. anybody who claims that consuming less resources *isn't* the solution is either ignorant or lying.

>>yungpo+VM1
It's not overconsumption, it's waste and pollution that are the problems. Cleaner technologies and policies are the solution. We could have decarbonized part of the economy already with nuclear power.

Degrowth is not a viable alternative on a world that's still has a large number of people that need better standards of living, and will still be adding a couple billion to the population. There's no viable economic or political model that would make degrowth work.

>>goatlo+P12
it is overconsumption. for one, it would be much easier to need our needs with renewable energy sources if we just consumed less energy and weren't so wasteful with it. more to the point, energy is only one part of the problem. all the clean, free energy in the universe doesn't stop deforestation, overfishing, and other habitat loss and environmental damage from unsustainable agriculture as a result of overconsumption. solving the emissions issue doesn't count for much if all the ecosystems we rely on collapse and we starve to death anyway.

degrowth is the only thing that could work at all, the lack of compatible economic and political models that would be compatible with is exactly my point, which is why we will ultimately not solve the problem.