as opposed to the right’s religion of “The 1950s were a perfect utopia and we should drag this country back there as fast as possible?”
give me a break. Where I live we’re still cleaning up this mess which those angels from your Paradise of the 1950s just dumped and buried. This is precisely why the EPA exists, because people and (especially) corporations cannot be trusted. The idea that “the regulations worked, so we no longer need them” is just Fox News horseshit. Remove the disincentives/punishments for gross polluting and they’ll go right back to dumping stuff like PCBs and Cr+6 wherever the hell they want to. And don’t give me any “free market” BS, w/o regulations the “free market” will encourage them to dump shit wherever because it’s easier and cheaper.
I know that you do not like it, but then it is clear that you are implying that inaction is assumed when dealing with the climate issue just because of an assumed ignorance about the population issue. That contamination can (and has been in the past) decoupled from an increase on the population, shows that not dealing head on with the contamination of our atmosphere is the red herring part of this argument, as it tell us to almost give up and ignoring other solutions just because an issue is not talked about (when it really was).
And many times in the past I did point at Hans Rosling before about the population issue in regard to the climate issue, so a lot of what you assume about posters that “do not talk” about the issue was… well, wrong.
When one takes into account what people are actually doing with family planning, that is a false dilemma. Even if by implication we should go all Thanos on the issue* it will not make much of a difference regarding contamination that causes global warming unless society did choose to avoid using the atmosphere as a sewer.
Important also to mention here: there has already been plenty of discussions in the past on this front to tell you that you should be careful about the propaganda out there, even more unsavory than the one made by plain people from the right. A lot of the arguments launched by overstating the population issue are geared towards making the misleading point that environmentalism = mass murder or immigration = more contamination; and are, as I have seen from previous misguided posters elsewhere in the SDMB, conductive mostly to make people fall for other fascist solutions or to become complete fascists.
Does having (even) fewer children really make that much difference for people in Western Europe or North America, though? Given that the governments of those countries simply replace the ‘missing’ people with immigrants, who adopt the same high-carbon lifestyle as their new neighbours?
Japan is the only country that seems willing to embrace a falling population.
Well, that is missing the point, since the evidence and history show that solutions are there that do not depend mainly on population control. Arguments like that one are boiler plate coming from nativists should be dismissed for what they are: a fake wedge issue.
No, that is not what said , nor what I’m implying.
One thing at a time.
Do you agree that overpopulation is a key factor in the increase of greenhouse gasses and so a key factor in climate change? As per the original article I linked to and the other link provided direct to the study.
If we don’t even agree on that then further discussion is pointless.
Again, it is a factor, just not the one that you want, because it is clear that you do continue to ignore that a problem brought thanks to our technology is then an issue that can be taken care of by replacing the technology or making changes, not to get rid of the humans.
And BTW even if you did not imply it you are also once again ignoring that a lot of what you are mentioned is old hat, and brought up by the very same groups that do like to see just FUD grow and so then we do not concentrate on the viable solutions while the population issue is also dealt with less implied difficulty.
The points I’m making have absolutely nothing to do with white supremacy. You seem to have a particular need to tie the subject back to that and fascism for some reason.
If you are starting from the assumption that anyone raising the subject of overpopulation is in league with or at risk of falling for such a ideaology then you are going to misconstrue pretty much anything that I say. You seem to be assuming a political affiliation for me that I simply do not hold. You need to wind it back and deal with the points I actually make rather than the views you think I harbour covertly. I’m not much of a poker player and it isn’t in my nature to try and be something I’m not.
Novelty Bobble is the one insisting population control is by far the most important solution. That seems unreasonable where the birth rate is already well below replacement levels. Any lower would risk becoming a social ill in itself, IMO.
The reasons are previous discussions in the very SDMB. Now is my turn to let you know that you are not aware of the previous discussions on the matter and that is real unlike your assumption that people like me did not talk ever about the population issue with regard to climate change, and many others besides just me have noticed how insidious is the propaganda by sounding plausible when the sources of it do pose as “environmentalists”
Not what I said, again I said that you are falling for very insidious propaganda.
“get rid of the humans”? what? did you really mean to phrase it that way?
I’ll cut you some slack because you may not have read my most recent post but really? is that really what you think addressing overpopulation means? You don’t need to hint at gas chambers and firing squads, but a focus on female empowerment, family planning and religious flexibility instead. We agree on that, yes? all of that and more that, yes? and faster too, yes?
The choice is not between “getting rid of humans” or “technological advancement”. That’s the fallacy of the excluded middle right there. I stated clearly it is not an either/or on multiple occaisions.
You say above that “it is a factor”. Well done, pretty much the weakest admission you could make but never mind, don’t worry, there is no danger of you starting to admire jackboots in the cobbler’s window. Of course it is a factor. An important and difficult factor among many others, by far the most important contribution to CO2 emmissions. Accepting that fact might be uncomfortable for you when you realise that other less tolerant groups also think that overpopulation is a problem. I can’t help you with that.
Well, then you did not read the link. It was to show that you also need to be aware of how nativists have twisted climate change arguments like the one you posted. Just another thing one should be aware so as to not fall for “easy” solutions coming from the anti-imigration front.
No, now you are ignoring what I also posted before to keep going, if not with that misunderstanding, you are still going as if other solutions are not more viable. Read again what Hans Rosling reported.
And if you had read what I said you would see that I already got that, I’m just saying that you don’t know a lot of what is going on, even in past SDMB discussions.
I was actually helping you with that, if you are sincere then it should be clear that you do agree then that you were wrong about saying that people like me did not talk before about population and you still need to be aware of who are pushing for arguments like that in this day and age.
Because it is still not clear that you are 100% correct on your “by far the most important contribution to CO2 emmissions.” if you were correct then things like controlling ozone depletion gases, controlling phosphates in rivers, controlling acid rain, controlling dirty water in developed nations and many other items would be impossible, and yet that has happened many times before while the population has increased.
I said, very clearly, that the subject was not raised in the thread until I did, and hardly at all to my knowledge in the recent extinction rebellion protests. I stand by that. If you have raised it previously in other threads then good for you. I’m sure you can post me a link so I can see what you think about it.
I’m interested though, how can you tell the difference between a liberal person with environmental concerns and an opinion that overpopulation is an important factor…and a fascist white supremicist?
I don’t follow your logic. What do the other issues you list have to do with CO2? Why does my initial statement being true mean the other things must be impossible?
As for the very ugly nativists pretending to be environmentalists, beware of what you ask for:
Not naming anyone but there was a poster there that later came up as a holocaust denier too, hence the warning I gave to all that they should consider their sources when looking at this issue.
Oh, some of the ones me and others dealt before do come forward eventually with an almost direct confession. (PM me for a direct link to a thread that took away any doubts about one poster that used the overpopulation and anti-immigration argument before)
In your case IMHO you are not a fascist, only that you are not aware of where those flawed arguments are coming from.
Nor do I really care because I’ll make my arguments on my own terms, but to be clear, that overpopulation is a big environmental issue is not a flawed argument.
Here is the awful truth, on the individual level little to nothing can be done, it’s like trying to stick your fingers in the dyke as multiple streams of water shoot out streams of water. Really it’s even less than that, we are all hypocrites, the only way to make a real difference is government regulation and the mutual, Enforced agreements of world governments.
On the individual level I don’t see much point, the Earth will correct our sins in its own cruel way, and the human race might end in a week due to a meteor or something hurtling through space at this very moment. I don’t go out of my way to make things worse, but I’m not going to live like it’s 99BC either.
Sounds a lot like triumphantly declaring that I did not get it, when I was the one that pointed it to you for a reason.
Remember, the reason it was posted was to show that I was aware of what Rosling said and one important item that shows that, besides talking about the population issue in the past, efforts are already there to deal with the population issue, one important reason why it is not at the tip of the tongue of proponents of change as you insist. Hence, the overall point: We are already walking and chewing gum at the same time, thank you very much.
Now we do have to concentrate on the main causes of the pollution and that includes doing an effort to vote for leaders that know about what is causing global warming instead of believing that it is a hoax.
(PM me for a direct link to a thread that took away any doubts about one poster that used the overpopulation and anti-immigration argument before)