Lately I've been really thinking deeply. I don't want to be anti social. But the straight forward solution to climate change seems to be very anti social. Namely, less people, worse economy, lower standard of living, reduce consumption and high prices.
It's difficult to not be anti social when there's a pressing climate issue that'll kill everyone eventually. Trading pain now for surviving later is going to be worth it.
7 months ago
I agree with @drh3xx and @m0xee. Reduced consumption doesn't necessarily translate to reduced satisfaction with one's life. The crux of the degrowth movement seems to be realigning society so folks do better without requiring ever-increasing material consumption. Regarding population fears: the countries with the highest emissions-per-capita are already seeing near-replacement birth rates, so I don't think Malthus was right on that one. Education, gender equality, and access to birth control seem to be key elements of moderating population growth. We *are* above carrying capacity, but I think the way forward is a combination of (IMO socialist) degrowth and targeted technological advancement. · 7 months ago
@half_elf_monk , I can see where your concern is coming from, but I don't think that reducing the overall number of people is a question of decimating them. The population nowadays starts growing slower — it's a natural process, and it's happening in the countries with higher standards of living. Some see it as a sign of trouble — but to me it seems natural. Families used to have 8 kids because some of them might not live long enough to reach their teenage years, progress in healthcare changed that, but people kept making babies like they used to, now they don't, they choose to have 2 kids, but want them to stay healthy and have good education. · 7 months ago
I agree with @drh3xx — reduced consumption doesn't necessary imply lower standards of living, because it's not necessary "eating bugs". Would you be happy if you could keep using the same phone or computer for ten years? I certainly would, most of my computers are over a decade old and I still like them, I'm typing this reply now on a computer that's nearly two decades old, and except for web — which became very common, but also very resource-demanding, it's still a usable machine. The worst part of it is that when it comes to most daily tasks, we can't do more with our computers than we could in the past 🤷 · 7 months ago
Variable isolation is powerful, but flawed because it misses out on big-picture solutions. Maybe more human beings means more chances to come up with better solutions. Rather than "degrowthing" population (against their will), what if we supercharged their education? Pursued discovery of clean energy and efficient work? · 7 months ago
Variable isolation leads to some pretty dire conclusions, which may be valid, but also are hideous and unacceptable. The logic of "less humans is better" sounds eerily similar to genocidal anti-minority rhetoric used in the past. Who says you're going to be in the subset of humanity who gets to continue living? Are you personally okay with that? I'm not. · 7 months ago
I'd argue that a lot of the negative consequences you mention would largely only apply or atleast to a significant degree if the decrease in population reduction were accompanied by clinging on to the current consumer capitalist setup. We need a system thats radically different and both more community and environmentally focused. I have to get my ass back to work shortly but if I get time later I'll add some kind of outline. · 7 months ago