A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Ima need yall to not crush a good imeperionstion that I do. I can do a great Hugo Weaving (as mr smith), and the main line that i start off with, or use in my head while saying other things, is the humans are cancer speech.
Also just.. Missssster Anderson
Thanks for the good vibes, they'd also love this over on LeftyMemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Feel free to crosspost!
I really dislike equating talking of ”overpopulation” with fascism.
The problem of building sustainable societies is a problem of scale. Inevitably, what a sustainable society looks like will depend on how many people that society has to provide finite resources for without causing too much environmental harm. Assuming we could agree on a lowest acceptable standard of living for everyone and a hard cap on emissions and other environmental harms of resource extraction, any population growth exceeding the rate of efficiency gains in resource extraction and resource utilization/distribution would drive a decline in that acceptable standard. And the reality is that efficiency gains are not guaranteed.
As land is finite, bigger populations by default means higher population density, requires higher extraction efficiency and scaling the average standard of living – allotment of resources and space – in line with keeping environment impact below sustainability thresholds. When using indigenous people as an example, we can note that they are often, conversely, characterized by low population density and low extraction efficiency. Despite low impact living standards, the world would not be able to accommodate a very large population relying on that as a model for sustainability.
The point is not to say that indigenous people living in traditional ways are inferior or less sustainable than people living wastefully in the global north. The point is that population/scale is a huge part in the equation, whether you’re making that point because you’re a fascist who wants to exterminate parts of the population or not.
Obviously, what is a good society with an acceptable living standard for all is hard to agree on. And so is at what point the human population exceeds the world’s capacity. But baring the invention of Star Trek like replicators, inter-planetary expansion or similar technological step-changes for humanity, every ideology infers a point of population overshoot where Earth cannot provide enough resources to offer an acceptable standard of living for its inhabitants.
The issue isn't population, it's consumption.
We don't need a dozen different plastic tchotchkes delivered to our doorstep the day after we order them. We don't need 64 GB of RAM for 10,000 steam games we'll never play in 4k at 60fps. We don't need to be able to order greasy piles of fast food whenever we want.
To me, blaming overpopulation for the world's problems always comes across as saying "I don't want to change my lifestyle, and if there's 6 billion fewer people, I won't have to"
Thank you for this thoughtful and nuanced take on the subject. It's sad that constructive discussion around population is often shut down due to the link between eugenics and population control. It's often assumed that anyone advocating for lowered population is in support of similarly dystopian/authoritarian policies, when increasing access to birth control and education has the same effect while increasing personal agency.
I would also note that the theory of evolution has been used to justify all kinds of absurd ideologies, yet we don't have a problem accepting its basic tenets.
If we accept the fact that humanity is in a state of ecological overshoot, and that overshoot is a function of population x consumption, then it's entirely reasonable to want to address both sides of the equation.
Also "living in traditional ways" is at best misleading. There is already more than enough to go around when we consider actual physical resources. Using market mechanisms to determine how things are distributed works very poorly in terms of meeting everyones needs, and blinds us to actual solutions.
The idea of overshooting earths capacity is firmly rooted in extractive ideology (which is a cornerstone of capitalist economies) and doesn't even begin to consider how an adjustment in economic output to meet real demand and not whatever is the most profitable, would result in massive changes in the way we do things.
Food production could become more regenerative because we need to feed people not make money.
Clothing industries would cut gigantic amounts of waste simply by ceasing the destruction of clothing to maintain high prices.
And these 2 ideas alone could revolutionize nearly every aspect of our existence.
Indigenous ways of doing is not extractive. It is better described as a collaboration with nature. Managing natural resources to meet our needs, and the needs of (often specifically) the next 7 generations. It means managing forests to make more forests, with all the flora and fauna that entails. Among other things
The fascist part is:
Ohh humans are the problem Okay, which humans? Who decides who gets what? Who lives and who dies? Is there any consideration for the power dynamics in our society (spoiler, no there is not)
In short the quote who ever said it:
Environmentalism without class struggle is just gardening.
The fascist part is: Ohh humans are the problem Okay, which humans? Who decides who gets what? Who lives and who dies? Is there any consideration for the power dynamics in our society (spoiler, no there is not)
That's the part that always gets me. When I hear that argument it usually goes like this:
"There's too many humans, we're killing our planet :("
"Yeah good thing you're not one of those! Oh wait you are so...Okay, are you gonna be first in line to sacrifice yourself for the alleged Greater Good or. . .?"
". . ."
". . .well?"
Although I dont disagree, the argument doesn't make sense. Do you think our worlds population would be the same if we all lived like indigenous people?
Are we counting the world's industry into "the world's richest 10%"? Because, last I checked, random dudes in mom-and-pop shops also ordered cheap items from China or India.
Who is reading this without being part of the 10%?
Why does this matter?
We have to know if we have to change our lives or those of the 1,000 billionaires.
It would be easy to change our lives but it becomes difficult if we wait for the billionaires to change instead.
According to this study, an income of $38,000/year puts you in the top 10% of carbon emitters. This study puts it at €42,980, or about $50K USD. That's a little higher than the median income in N. America, Europe, and Australia.
That said, carbon emissions are just one way humans impact the environment; other facets are far less variable (we all produce about the same amount of human waste per day, for example).
what's the cutoff to be in the 90%?
Wealth distribution pyramid has $100,000 as limit to top 7.7%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth
So $90,000 could be the cutoff.
Of course students don't have that. However I would include anybody into the top 10% who will own $100,000 at one point in their life which should be anybody with real estate or a private pension plan in the West.
When you buy a house you're "one of the world's richest". The "world's richest" aren't just millionaires and billionaires. They include the middle classes.
Assuming you live in a developed country. If you make your own mud hut in the wilderness, you own the house but you're definitely not one of the world's richest
