I agree with this statement. But, absent technological breakthroughs, how many humans can Earth sustainably maintain? Maybe a few hundred million? We're talking about an order of magnitude decrease in population size. Are you OK to say goodbye to 9 out of every 10 people you know? Are you OK to be one of those 9 of 10 that need to die?
1. While global population growth is slowing, population is still growing. 2. There are many real problems with population decline, but that's not an excuse to just throw your hands up and assume we need endless growth.
Also, do you mean replacement rate? Sustainment birth rate is not a term in common usage.
For the record, population growth is not my highest concern, especially since it decreases with improved quality of life anyway. I simply have no patience for lazily dismissing discussion of population growth as "eco-fascism" or whatever. The truth is that a lot of our existential risks would be easier to manage with smaller global population, especially if we care about that whole global population having access to good quality of life (which we should).
This is why your detractors are calling you an eco-fascist.
People are not cows. You have no right to manage us, or our birth rate, or change us to suit you. That you can even fathom such a sentance is itself suggestive of deficiency.
If you want to change your life, please do. Attempting to force your preferences on others is unwise.
> especially if we care about that whole global population having access to good quality of life
You assume you know what makes my life good. What makes my life good is not the same thing that makes the lives of others good.
The best advice I can give you is to travel and spend time with other people who are different from yourself. What you value, others may not. What they value, you may not.
> People are not cows. You have no right to manage us, or our birth rate, or change us to suit you.
I'm not. Implying I want to manage people like cows is clear bad-faith nonsense.
The arguments of neomalthusians are not correct, because birth rates plateau in response to lots of external forces (like education, providing people access to family planning if they want it, and general quality of life) - with that said its stupid to pretend that we have the technology to sustain our current population levels with even the current distribution of lifestyles, let alone the opportunities we should be attempting to provide to all. One might call that lack of understanding "deficient".
I believe in the agency of individual people - I am against coercive reproductive policies. I understand the problematic history of movements associated with population anxiety. None of that justifies your absurd accusations.
> You assume you know what makes my life good
I'm not the one making assumptions here. What would you say of native peoples whose land is being made unlivable by the climate crisis and loss of biodiversity? Would they be "eco-fascists" for wanting the industrial world to get its shit together?
> The best advice I can give you is to travel and spend time with other people who are different from yourself. What you value, others may not. What they value, you may not.
Again, how dare you. Your condescending inflexibility is truly unreal.
To summarize - you think any discussion of human population equates to eco-fascism, regardless of context, motivation, or the ethical and scientific basis on which it is being discussed.
Is all of macroeconomics fascist because it talks about the behavior of people in groups rather than recognizing all of our unique individuality?
Is anatomy fascist because it studies our literal, physical, animal bodies?
Is all regulation fascist because it constrains our individual freedom in favor of collective good? Even workplace safety regulations? Even pure food and drink regulations? Even regulations against environmental damage that affects future generations?
If there's no room to talk about collective things at all, then your ideological bubble is small enough to suffocate you (or in this case, everyone).
> The arguments of neomalthusians are not correct, because birth rates plateau in response to lots of external forces
And attempting to engineer those things to an end of changing birth rates is starkly dangerous territory, nor will a pattern always hold. Not all cultures have less kids upon becoming more educated.
> What would you say of native peoples whose land is being made unlivable by the climate crisis and loss of biodiversity?
There was a young woman attempting to collect signatures to "stop burning the rainforest".
I asked her if she understood that those burns came from people who lived there, often the poor, who were attempting to farm.
She doubled down that it was wrong. So I asked what she would have them do instead. Would she be willing to give them different land? A different place to live?
It's easy to make "other" people sacrifice at no cost to yourself. When you have to directly compensate them, suddenly people change their tune.
"Collective good", "save the children" and so on are red herrings. Of course we want the commons to be well treated and the children safe, but how often is that action actually achieving that? How much more often is it merely control by a minority?
Green energy has been profitable for years and investment is massively outpacing even the most positive projection of a decade ago.
> There's no reason to believe we can successfully run away from all the problem's technology's caused with more technology
There is actually a lot of reason to believe we can. People were basically having the same attitude regarding food production at the beginning of the 20th century just before the Green revolution happened.
The impact of innovation has been systematically underestimated by environmentalists and climate specialist for the past thrity years. For example, the part of the IPCC scenarios dealing with it is very poor (admittedly it's also old and couldn't really anticipate investement would grow so much).
I think most people face the climate issue from a practical and moral standpoint which is fundamentaly wrong. Sadly the level of applied scientific knowledge of the general population is going down the drain so fast, it's in no way surprising.
... "innovation" is exactly what put us in this position to begin with. It's a losing battle, whatever comes is accepted as the new default standard of living, we'll always want more
I know it's hipe to pile up on the modern world but I quite enjoy hunger being a solvable issue despite the population rising to unheard of before numbers, having eridacated or significantly reduced the impact of most of the nastiest diseases and education and well being steadily rising throughout the world. I don't understand how so many people got convinced that the solution is wallowing in sorrow and selfpity and advocating for a return to the dark age.
Burning fossil fuel IS _the_ thing that brought us here. There is no innovation without fossil fuel, there is no growth without fossil fuel: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-correlation-between-...
Plastic, transportation, medicine, food, &c. every single thing that allowed us to live like we do today is 100% fossil fuel based. Fossil fuel were a miracle, finding alternative will be extremely long and hard, if not completely impossible
> I don't understand how so many people got convinced that the solution is wallowing in sorrow and selfpity and advocating for a return to the dark age.
Nobody is advocating for that, it's not a solution, it's the reality we'll be facing soon, even if you don't want to. The choice is to be realistic and prepare for what's coming VS continuing business as usual
> I quite enjoy hunger being a solvable issue despite the population rising
Are you sure about that ? That as many people suffering of hunger _right now_ that there were inhabitants in the whole fucking world in 1800
> having eridacated or significantly reduced the impact of most of the nastiest diseases
All fun an games until bacteria started becoming antibiotic resistant: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4378521/
The very thing that allowed us to live like we do now is coming to bite our asses
We have clean energy sources. Alternative are already there for the most polluting usage: nuclear power, wind and solar, electric propulsion. You are stuck thirty years in the past and arguing for us to go further back.
> Are you sure about that?
Of course I’m sure about that. Production has been above demand for decades. The issue is instability and logistic. We have the technical means to feed everyone and hunger affects an infinitely smaller proportion of the world than 200 years ago (population was multiplied by 8 since 1800).
> The choice is to be realistic and prepare for what's coming VS continuing business as usual
No one is advocating for continuing business as usual. Some are advocating strongly for curbing everyone freedom and accepting making everyone life worse to conform to their moral standards. Others want to actually tackle the problem like we have done for every other one: by working on finding and developing appropriate solutions which clearly do exist.
> All fun an games until bacteria started becoming antibiotic resistant
It’s still fun and game. The issue is broad antibiotic use in farming and poor economic return for companies working on antibiotic and despite that we still have effective cure.
Press X to doubt. The level of technological hubris in this statement is astonishing - we don't know that we'll be able to do this, and we can estimate that the cost of mitigation will be higher than prevention.
Very few are advocating living like acetic monks, but we absolutely need to work on including externalities into our pricing system.