Interesting that another account posted this exact response slightly further up.
It's a non sequitur designed to degrade the conversation and it implies that having reservations about constant growth within the current paradigm is somehow akin to desiring large scale mass killing?
It is a sincere and honest question. Misplaced concern about overpopulation has already caused world bank loans to be tied to population management quotas, which have been met through the creative means of forced sterilization of indigenous/minority women in Central America and South Asia. AKA literal genocide.
A political movement to “decrease the Earth’s population” is extremely bizarre and troubling, and deserves being called out for what it is.
Cool, then we're on the same page for other ecology management issues too, right? All of that "let's sell licenses for hunting other animals" we should simply stop, right? We should just let the world sort itself out since we've never had any success in managing populations of other animals either through protection or hunting, right?
Humans are not some unique, special animal. We're a very invasive, ecology modifying organism. We already have rules on where humans can and cannot live, where resource extraction can happen and how much. It may be uncomfortable to consider, but yes, we absolutely should manage our own population so we don't fuck up our one, and only, spaceship that's flying through a universe that is very hostile for us.
Metastatic growth is simply unsustainable. Running our civilization like a capitalistic business ignoring externalities and borrowing against the future that needs constant growth to sustain isn't a great idea. That will crash.
It's a non sequitur designed to degrade the conversation and it implies that having reservations about constant growth within the current paradigm is somehow akin to desiring large scale mass killing?
Bizarre and troubling.