[ezxs]

Are we going to keep avoiding the fact that the population growth can not be the goal any more? In fact it's better for this planet if the number of people actually decreased? BTW no on is advocating doing it forcefully, but just through distributing contraception and educating women, that seems keep the population stable.

[betaby]

It a very unpopular idea in this forum and in general in the western world which is basically 'growth by all possible means'. More consumers - better.

[CatWChainsaw]

The "exponential growth forever" microsecond of human history will be looked on as a fever dream in the future, and hopefully the masses who support that ideology will be remembered with the same contempt as slavers.

[bitwize]

Then we need to shut down the "Western world". A blanket ban on excess overbreeding and polluting technology. Maybe the NWO should consider using their stockpiles of sterilization drugs bound for the water supplies...

[slothtrop]

Degrowth as a concept is about economic growth. Not only is it popular with the far-left/environmentalist intersection, they don't seem to want to consider population at all. Part of this is because it feels incongruent with their stance on immigration, even though they aren't the same things.

Even those enthusiastic about economic growth are at least more likely to be honest with themselves that scaling up is creating pressure on the environment, despite the improvements in innovation. This is because of soaring global demand (particularly from the East). There are, of course, techno-optimists who want to believe that a sustainable future is a foregone conclusion. Even if we think we'll get there eventually, the damage in the meantime can be considerable.

[micromacrofoot]

we can support a larger population, but we can't support a larger population at the current meat consumption levels

I guess we'll find out if we're willing to eat less meat, or if we'd rather a certain % of the global population to starve... so far it's looking like the latter

[slothtrop]

> we can support a larger population, but we can't support a larger population at the current meat consumption levels

All environmental encroachment and emissions scale with demand. It's reductionist to only talk about meat; it's not the only reason people want to migrate to the West. Notwithstanding, demands for alternatives have shot up in Western countries and land-use for cattle has not actually increased in the US. As countries in developing world lift themselves out of poverty, they consume more meat (and fuel, gadgets, etc).

Even if you hypothetically cut down meat consumption in the West, emissions would still rise to levels that would exacerbate climate change. It's not enough. And "degrowth" is such an injust hardship to demand of developing countries that it's amazing people consider it an actual possibility. Some combination of tough policy measures (in the short-run) and innovation is what we can expect, probably after things get worse.

Ultimately global population growth is going to stall, in less than 100 years. by then whether people eat meat will be a moot point. Demand won't grow, and renewables will have taken over the market.

[panick21_]

Nobody is advocating using force, exept of course the "envoirmentalists" who came up with the idea.

But lets just ignore that big of uncomfortable history.

[remarkEon]

De-growth is a suicide pact. It's not worth entertaining because it isn't a serious idea.

[LinXitoW]

The simple issue is that in the calculation "amount_of_people * amount_of_consumption > carrying_capacity", only one of them is easily advocated for in an ethical manner. We have a loooooooong history of measure taken to reduce population always fucking over the minoritized. Ironically, those are the people least likely to have caused the problem in the first place.

TLDR: Veganism is easier to advocate for than not having kids. I say that as a childfree vegan.