This is false. Only a minority of the population is responsible for the catastrophe. Take Africa, a continent with over 1.2 billion inhabitants: their carbon footprint, *all import included*, is below what our ecosystems can support. The way of live of the majority of human beings is sustainable.
Why force countries that are sustainable overall (at least in terms of C02 emissions) to not have children because the richest are destroying the climate.
Yeah, how do you think planning the largest genocide in history sounds to people? Do you even hear yourself? Do you want to go to 6 out of 7 people and tell them they cannot breed? What will be the punishment if they do? Or will you forcibly sterilise them?
The one who seems to be hearing voices in his head is you. I never suggested such a thing as genocide or forced sterilization.
I'm simply pointing out what I believe to be the root cause of the problem, and that if you keep applying ointment to wooden legs, you aren't going to achieve much.
But then talking about overpopulation is taboo, so let's just dig our heads in the sand and wait to get properly baked.
World population will decline in any case if/when climate catastrophe happens. People will drown, drop dead from heats, die from starvation, etc. It's the Lotka-Volterra model where the predator is the environment.
Climate catastrophe is created by humans. Climate catastrophe kills humans. Conclusion: Humans kill humans. The genocide (mass scale murder) is already here (assuming climate change will be as bad as worst predictions are)
Only the strongest will survive. That is the cornerstone of Nazi ethics. That will also be the reality of everyone when food and water gets scarce. Damned if you sterilise 6B people, damned if you don't and they die from heat or fighting each other for food.
Moral theoretisising aside, population will decline before the total climate collapse. The current ethical beliefs of feminism, harsh economic conditions for young people (inequality and foreseeable end of growth), depressing reality how we will die horribly from ISIS, China or Climate Change. All of them bring about to less pairs creating children.
But humans will survive. We are worse than cockroaches. Nothing can destroy us. Mars might happen. Singularity maybe. But human race will persist in any case as long as earth persists in any livable state (-60 to +60 degrees C, somewhat fresh Air and uncontaminated water). Humans will downscale to a couple millions but will remain.
In every discussion of environmental problems, someone says this like it’s some sort of obvious solution that everyone’s too afraid to discuss. But I want specifics from you — what would the actual policy be, and how would you implement it?
Are you talking about the genocide of billions for people? I mean, that’s far worse than the crisis we face!
Or are you talking about birth control? That would have to be radical and start right now to have much of an effect, and how on earth would you get everyone to agree with it?
Both these “solutions” seem utterly absurd on their face, and WAY harder to implement that even to most radical non-genocidal environmental policies.
I do not claim to have a solution, I'm simply pointing out where the focus of the conversation should be.
All of the "be friendly to the environment" type solutions to global warning I'm hearing about are all completely naive and simply ignoring human nature and the basic desire humans have for comfort and improvement to their lives.
Barring an amazing technological advance that'll let us control CO2 levels in our environment at planet scale, I believe it's time to be honest about the correlation between population size and global warming and to discuss what we can do about it.
>Are you talking about the genocide of billions for people?
Obviously not.
>I mean, that’s far worse than the crisis we face!
That remains to be seen. The number of people that might suffer to the point of loss of life because of climate change is something that - as another comment pointed out - no one can properly estimate.
>Or are you talking about birth control?
This is an avenue that needs to be discussed indeed. Perhaps not the way China did it, but something more along the lines of what the US did with educating people about tobacco. And also discussing the far reaching economic impact slow population decrease would have on the economy and infrastructures.
That was my point. Environmental policies are IMO completely useless in the face of what the population wants. The problem is most acute in democracies where e.g. raising taxes on gas is a surefire way for a politician to commit political suicide. But even in tyrannies like China, I doubt they'll be able to restrain the wants and needs of their people to the point where we'll solve global warming.
You can also turn the logic around with this. Many of the globalist institutions promoting climate apocalypse have a historical background in 'population control'. Globalists do openly discuss limiting population growth. What is difficult to discuss is the link between eugenicist population control schemes and the climate scare.
But climate change is just a symptom, and absolutely not the disease.
No one seems to want to discuss or even mention the actual root cause of climate change, namely: there are simply too many people on the planet.
Go back to less than 1B human on planet earth, and climate change will stop being a problem in a heartbeat.
But the implications of such a drastic population decrease are simply impossible for any politician to even consider, much less discuss openly.
Not to mention the swath of folks for whom "be fruitful and multiply" is still a basic moral tenet.