• silence7OPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    7 months ago

    There is a distinct racist history to how overpopulation is discussed. High-birth-rate countries tend to be low-emissions-per-capita countries, so overpopulation complaints are often effectively saying “nonwhites can’t have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels” or “countries which caused the climate problem shouldn’t take in climate refugees.”

    On top of this, as basic education reaches a larger chunk of the world, birth rates are dropping. We expect to achieve population stabilization this century as a result.

    At the end of the day, it’s the greenhouse gas concentrations that actually raise the temperature. That means that we need to take steps to stop burning fossil fuels and end deforestation.

    • GaMEChld@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Very interesting. Exactly the type of information I was looking for, thanks for providing. I do wonder why the question was down voted. That doesn’t seem like a productive way to achieve the desired result if the desired result is to convince more people that giving up beef is the lowest hanging fruit on the path to fighting climate change.

      If anyone who down voted me reads this, please tell me why you did so that I may better understand how to communicate effectively.

      • silence7OPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I think it got downvotes because the people pushing the question tend to be promoting the idea that we could have a wonderful pure environment if only we killed off all the brown people.

          • silence7OPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            That’s why I had a comment explaining why it’s bad. Downvotes serve to make it less visible

            • GaMEChld@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Oh yes, I wasn’t pointing a finger at you specifically. Rather, I thought your response was excellent! I’m more just pointing out the civility of our discourse so that other people can learn effective communication strategies, and better my own as well. Thank you for your reasonable responses.

      • Sybil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        If anyone who down voted me reads this, please tell me why you did so that I may better understand how to communicate effectively.

        i like to reduce the visibility of malthusian ponderings.

        • GaMEChld@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Hmm… I understand the desire for reducing the spread of damaging theories, but there also seems to be an element of burying one’s head in the sand to that approach. Wouldn’t it be more productive to explain logically and dispassionately what the problems with the thought processes are rather than ignore the problem?

          How does that approach build consensus to effect meaningful policy change?

          Simply ignoring the person’s position doesn’t convince them to vote differently.