This is a huge inference from what was originally said. The guy you’re replying to has a point, the problem isn’t that there’s 8 billion of us, and saying we need to stop population growth to solve our problems does border on eco fascism.
Sex ed and sexual healthcare is important for other reasons, as you mentioned, but we need to stop saying shit like “we’re the virus” because it’s just eco fascism
Personally, I can’t think of a reason why we should have more people on the planet. This isn’t an argument for actively reducing the the number of people, but instead providing the tools, education, and laws to allow people to manage their family sizes to cap or at least reduce population growth.
FYI, we are the virus. Humanity is multiple extinction events happening at the same time. If we are going to survive, then we need to be the kind of virus to integrates into our host’s DNA, and not the kind that destroys all the cells and delicate structures that allow our host to exist in the first place.
Why shouldn’t people be allowed to have many children? In poorer countries having many children is a form of insurance, as a portion of them just straight up die before reaching adulthood, and because they can care for their elders. If people want many kids, they should be allowed to have them, but they should also have the options to use protection and healthcare, with that I agree.
Saying humanity is the virus is the part I don’t agree with because most of the destruction is caused by a very small portion of humanity. We have enough resources on this planet to make sure all 8 billion (and more) of us can live comfortably, but instead the wealth distribution is so skewed that most of earth’s resources and wealth goes to a small percentage of people. The problem in this world aren’t poor families with 5 children, it’s the wealthy elite trying to maximize their profits above everything. THEY are the virus.
Why shouldn’t people be allowed to have many children?
This is a strawman argument, but I’ll bite anyway.
Two reasons, logarithmic growth, and finite resources.
Saying humanity is the virus is the part I don’t agree with because most of the destruction is caused by a very small portion of humanity.
It’s not all the virus particles that kill you, just the ones that knock out your essential organs.
The biggest climate impact the typical person can have, is to have fewer children. Hands down, that means fewer cars, less farming, less production, not only for that child, but any children they may have and so on.
Having many children as a form of insurance isn’t required in nearly as many places, that’s old-school semi-racist thinking. Providing a better chance for children to survive, and having a society that takes care of its elders eliminates this “need” entirely.
We have enough resources on this planet to make sure all 8 billion (and more) of us can live comfortably
It’s a cute idea, but getting those resources distributed evenly takes even more resources. I’ve read the article and it smells like bullshit to me because it uses GDP per capital to equate quality (or excess) of life. The availability of food, fresh water and shelter is not necessarily linked to GDP.
The problem in this world aren’t poor families with 5 children, it’s the wealthy elite trying to maximize their profits above everything. THEY are the virus.
Totally agree, but let’s not forget, those wealthy elites are the same species. Even if most of the virus isn’t killing the host, it’s still the same virus as the infection that is.
Are we doing ad-hominemns? You’d make a great idylic idiot, who doesn’t understand population growth, or what the definition of fascism is.
I’m not calling for hard limits on population. I’m calling for people to have the choice, tools, and knowledge to control their reproduction. Any further inferences about sterlization, euthanasia, child limits, etc… is all purely a comprehension issue on your end.
You called human-beings a virus. An ad-hominem is when you insult someone in order to not address their argument. Pointing out your language of calling humans “viruses” to be fascist is not ad-hominem. It’s directly addressing the language you used.
If you’re gonna point to logical fallacies you might want to know what they actually mean.
Now. I could have misunderstood what you meant. You were not really clear. But that language is literally eco-fascist.
Maybe Google their talking points. Because you’re repeating them even if you don’t intend to.
Calling me an eco-fascist is the ad-hominem. It’s missing the point that there is no benefit to having more people on the planet, there is no harm in providing people the means to control their reproduction (if they choose to do so). Eventually we will reach the carrying capacity of the planet which will require literally euthanizing or sterilizing people so that humanity can survive, so we will have to limit reproduction, and I’m in favor of encouraging people to do that electively right now. There is no sense in getting to that cricitical point earlier.
I did a quick search on what eco-fascists preach, and they seek to limit human population through violence or force ( which I’m not advocating for), along racial lines ( which I’m not advocating for), rejecting modernity ( I work in tech, definitely not something I’m for). I’m not an eco-fascist, and calling me one is an ad-hominemn to distract from the point that slowing or stopping human population growth through voluntary means is a gain for humanity as a whole.
I’m not using the same taking points as eco-fascists, and even if I was, I wouldn’t be concerned and here is why… Regular fascists platformed on making the trains run on time, but it would be ridiculous to label anyone pro-rail infrastructure as a fascist. Similarity in tools, is not similarity in execution and goals.
Most supporters of fascism aren’t going to think “I’m doing this for the white race”.
Point out where I’m advocating for one race to be eliminated or preserved over another one. Direct quotes please, otherwise any intent of racial bias exists entirely in your own mind and misunderstanding. Drop this line of attack, it’s not valid and you can’t make it stick.
When you say things like “caring capacity of the planet”. Like, that’s actually a realistic threat.
Not sure if typo, but the term is “carrying capacity”, this may affect your understanding of my comment if you think I actually meant “caring capacity”. Carrying capacity is the maximum number of a species that can exist in an environment/area. It’s hilarious to see you write about carrying capacity being false (assuming you read the correct term) in one paragraph, and then immediately turn around and state this…
Dude, the planet is going to become inhospital in most places for human life within the next century or two.
…Which pretty explicitly recognizes that the space on this planet that humans can live on is finite, and will get even smaller if we don’t change our current climate trends. This logical inconsistency seems pretty on point for you though. I really suggest that you examine your opinions, especially when they are right next to each other, and then come to a singluar point that you can argue instead of just throwing shit at the wall and hoping that I don’t call you out on it.
Eco-fascist stand their as a solution to the “hard truths” of climate change. Masking themselves as scientific and reasonable. They are not offering solutions for humanity. They are offering solutions for who they view as human and “leser than”. But they’re not gonna say that. They’re gonna say the same thing you are saying.
You’re saying here that I’m advocating for eco-fascist tools and tactics, and therefore I must be an eco-fascist. Let me reduce this argument further, “if you use the same tools as a group, you must be part of the group”. Well, famously, the Nazis wore clothes and drove cars, if you do either of those then congratulations; by your logic, you are a Nazi. So tell me, why are you advocating for the extermination of Jews? Or is it that your logic is flawed and your conclusions about my alignment with eco-fascism is void of any actual evidence?
Dude, the planet is going to become inhospital in most places for human life within the next century or two.
Let’s examine this point a little more… I’m not stupid, and I’m willing to believe you’re not stupid. You’re insinuating that equitorial regions, like Central America, Africa and India are going to be the regions primarily affected by global warming… These are areas where the people are predominantly targeted by racial profiling by hate groups. So what you are saying, is that it’s an Eco-Fascist position to advocate for global ability for individuals to control reproduction, but the alternative is that the people in these areas die first and most frequently during a global climate crisis. It’s seems pretty fucking racist to me to fight against global population efforts while acknowledging that people of those demographics are going to be the most vulnerable to the inevitable crisis caused by global (not regional) population growth. If that was too much, let my summarize, the full consequences of your position as I understand it; it’s racist to give people globally the tools to electively control their reproduction, and you’re alright with marginalized groups dying because of the consequences of rapid population growth in wealthier (whiter, I might dare to add) areas? And you think I’m the one here who is unwittingly racist? Really?
But I don’t know why I bother even mentioning that because you don’t sound like the person to have an intelligent conversation with anyway given the conclusion you jumped to from my comment.
That was the tongue-in-cheek point of my comment about you jumping to conclusions about the previous comment. They said that they don’t think more people on the planet is beneficial, and you went straight to calling people them an eco-nazi without bothering to understand what they meant.
I can’t tell which is worse; your reading comprehension or the irony of you saying I’m the one jumping to conclusions.
Maybe reread the initial comment I made. I asked for clarification on what they meant because I DIDN’T jump to conclusions. Then I clarified why I was asking because that language around “population” is often used by white supremacists.
I never accused that comment of such things and they followed it up with a clarification. We had an adult conversation and didn’t make a childish comment like you did.
Maybe go read it. Because it seems like you might need an example of how to actually communicate with people around sensitive subjects without just straw manning what someone is asking and saying.
You can misunderstand my comment. That’s fine. That can happen. But you’re doubling down on your misunderstanding now and pretending that that’s what I “secretly” meant. You are being childish.
I can’t tell which is worse; your reading comprehension or the irony of you saying I’m the one jumping to conclusions
Oh shit I’m sorry, this wasn’t you?
Population control is not a solution. There is no way in which that doesn’t involve Nazi level eugenics shit given our current world powers.
OH WAIT.
The real rich thing is you saying “I don’t want to jump to conclusions” and then the next two sentences are “You must be talking about population control and Nazi eugenics shit”.
Not really much of a conversation TBH. Just try to avoid associating peope with Nazis or Eco-Fascists before you try to understand what they are saying. I did see your split off thread, and I’m glad there was a more measured and serious tone in there…
You could have just left it at your first paragraph and left out your incomplete opinions about how the only solution is population control through eugenics. I thought it was a funny interaction, boiled it down to its core concepts, threw in a dash of all caps no spaces and it blew up.
This is a huge inference from what was originally said. The guy you’re replying to has a point, the problem isn’t that there’s 8 billion of us, and saying we need to stop population growth to solve our problems does border on eco fascism.
Sex ed and sexual healthcare is important for other reasons, as you mentioned, but we need to stop saying shit like “we’re the virus” because it’s just eco fascism
Personally, I can’t think of a reason why we should have more people on the planet. This isn’t an argument for actively reducing the the number of people, but instead providing the tools, education, and laws to allow people to manage their family sizes to cap or at least reduce population growth.
FYI, we are the virus. Humanity is multiple extinction events happening at the same time. If we are going to survive, then we need to be the kind of virus to integrates into our host’s DNA, and not the kind that destroys all the cells and delicate structures that allow our host to exist in the first place.
Why shouldn’t people be allowed to have many children? In poorer countries having many children is a form of insurance, as a portion of them just straight up die before reaching adulthood, and because they can care for their elders. If people want many kids, they should be allowed to have them, but they should also have the options to use protection and healthcare, with that I agree.
Saying humanity is the virus is the part I don’t agree with because most of the destruction is caused by a very small portion of humanity. We have enough resources on this planet to make sure all 8 billion (and more) of us can live comfortably, but instead the wealth distribution is so skewed that most of earth’s resources and wealth goes to a small percentage of people. The problem in this world aren’t poor families with 5 children, it’s the wealthy elite trying to maximize their profits above everything. THEY are the virus.
This is a strawman argument, but I’ll bite anyway.
Two reasons, logarithmic growth, and finite resources.
It’s not all the virus particles that kill you, just the ones that knock out your essential organs.
The biggest climate impact the typical person can have, is to have fewer children. Hands down, that means fewer cars, less farming, less production, not only for that child, but any children they may have and so on.
Having many children as a form of insurance isn’t required in nearly as many places, that’s old-school semi-racist thinking. Providing a better chance for children to survive, and having a society that takes care of its elders eliminates this “need” entirely.
It’s a cute idea, but getting those resources distributed evenly takes even more resources. I’ve read the article and it smells like bullshit to me because it uses GDP per capital to equate quality (or excess) of life. The availability of food, fresh water and shelter is not necessarily linked to GDP.
Totally agree, but let’s not forget, those wealthy elites are the same species. Even if most of the virus isn’t killing the host, it’s still the same virus as the infection that is.
You’d make a great eco-fascist.
Are we doing ad-hominemns? You’d make a great idylic idiot, who doesn’t understand population growth, or what the definition of fascism is.
I’m not calling for hard limits on population. I’m calling for people to have the choice, tools, and knowledge to control their reproduction. Any further inferences about sterlization, euthanasia, child limits, etc… is all purely a comprehension issue on your end.
You called human-beings a virus. An ad-hominem is when you insult someone in order to not address their argument. Pointing out your language of calling humans “viruses” to be fascist is not ad-hominem. It’s directly addressing the language you used.
If you’re gonna point to logical fallacies you might want to know what they actually mean.
Now. I could have misunderstood what you meant. You were not really clear. But that language is literally eco-fascist.
Maybe Google their talking points. Because you’re repeating them even if you don’t intend to.
Calling me an eco-fascist is the ad-hominem. It’s missing the point that there is no benefit to having more people on the planet, there is no harm in providing people the means to control their reproduction (if they choose to do so). Eventually we will reach the carrying capacity of the planet which will require literally euthanizing or sterilizing people so that humanity can survive, so we will have to limit reproduction, and I’m in favor of encouraging people to do that electively right now. There is no sense in getting to that cricitical point earlier.
I did a quick search on what eco-fascists preach, and they seek to limit human population through violence or force ( which I’m not advocating for), along racial lines ( which I’m not advocating for), rejecting modernity ( I work in tech, definitely not something I’m for). I’m not an eco-fascist, and calling me one is an ad-hominemn to distract from the point that slowing or stopping human population growth through voluntary means is a gain for humanity as a whole.
I’m not using the same taking points as eco-fascists, and even if I was, I wouldn’t be concerned and here is why… Regular fascists platformed on making the trains run on time, but it would be ridiculous to label anyone pro-rail infrastructure as a fascist. Similarity in tools, is not similarity in execution and goals.
Removed by mod
Point out where I’m advocating for one race to be eliminated or preserved over another one. Direct quotes please, otherwise any intent of racial bias exists entirely in your own mind and misunderstanding. Drop this line of attack, it’s not valid and you can’t make it stick.
Not sure if typo, but the term is “carrying capacity”, this may affect your understanding of my comment if you think I actually meant “caring capacity”. Carrying capacity is the maximum number of a species that can exist in an environment/area. It’s hilarious to see you write about carrying capacity being false (assuming you read the correct term) in one paragraph, and then immediately turn around and state this…
…Which pretty explicitly recognizes that the space on this planet that humans can live on is finite, and will get even smaller if we don’t change our current climate trends. This logical inconsistency seems pretty on point for you though. I really suggest that you examine your opinions, especially when they are right next to each other, and then come to a singluar point that you can argue instead of just throwing shit at the wall and hoping that I don’t call you out on it.
You’re saying here that I’m advocating for eco-fascist tools and tactics, and therefore I must be an eco-fascist. Let me reduce this argument further, “if you use the same tools as a group, you must be part of the group”. Well, famously, the Nazis wore clothes and drove cars, if you do either of those then congratulations; by your logic, you are a Nazi. So tell me, why are you advocating for the extermination of Jews? Or is it that your logic is flawed and your conclusions about my alignment with eco-fascism is void of any actual evidence?
Let’s examine this point a little more… I’m not stupid, and I’m willing to believe you’re not stupid. You’re insinuating that equitorial regions, like Central America, Africa and India are going to be the regions primarily affected by global warming… These are areas where the people are predominantly targeted by racial profiling by hate groups. So what you are saying, is that it’s an Eco-Fascist position to advocate for global ability for individuals to control reproduction, but the alternative is that the people in these areas die first and most frequently during a global climate crisis. It’s seems pretty fucking racist to me to fight against global population efforts while acknowledging that people of those demographics are going to be the most vulnerable to the inevitable crisis caused by global (not regional) population growth. If that was too much, let my summarize, the full consequences of your position as I understand it; it’s racist to give people globally the tools to electively control their reproduction, and you’re alright with marginalized groups dying because of the consequences of rapid population growth in wealthier (whiter, I might dare to add) areas? And you think I’m the one here who is unwittingly racist? Really?
Removed by mod
That was the tongue-in-cheek point of my comment about you jumping to conclusions about the previous comment. They said that they don’t think more people on the planet is beneficial, and you went straight to calling people them an eco-nazi without bothering to understand what they meant.
Woosh.
I can’t tell which is worse; your reading comprehension or the irony of you saying I’m the one jumping to conclusions.
Maybe reread the initial comment I made. I asked for clarification on what they meant because I DIDN’T jump to conclusions. Then I clarified why I was asking because that language around “population” is often used by white supremacists.
I never accused that comment of such things and they followed it up with a clarification. We had an adult conversation and didn’t make a childish comment like you did.
Maybe go read it. Because it seems like you might need an example of how to actually communicate with people around sensitive subjects without just straw manning what someone is asking and saying.
You can misunderstand my comment. That’s fine. That can happen. But you’re doubling down on your misunderstanding now and pretending that that’s what I “secretly” meant. You are being childish.
Oh shit I’m sorry, this wasn’t you?
OH WAIT.
The real rich thing is you saying “I don’t want to jump to conclusions” and then the next two sentences are “You must be talking about population control and Nazi eugenics shit”.
Don’t fuck with me. I’ve got receipts.
Removed by mod
Not really much of a conversation TBH. Just try to avoid associating peope with Nazis or Eco-Fascists before you try to understand what they are saying. I did see your split off thread, and I’m glad there was a more measured and serious tone in there…
You could have just left it at your first paragraph and left out your incomplete opinions about how the only solution is population control through eugenics. I thought it was a funny interaction, boiled it down to its core concepts, threw in a dash of all caps no spaces and it blew up.