this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
418 points (99.5% liked)
196
17586 readers
476 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Any advanced society should be able to acknowledge that population growth must not outpace the available resources. Or else there will be Bad Times For All
There are more houses/apartments than people.
There is more food going to the trash than what we need.
It's not that we have a lot of people. The problem is the greed of a few and the complacency/idiocy of the rest.
Yeah, having kids probably reduced my household resource consumption, compared to the dual income no kid lifestyle that my wife and I had before kids.
Population growth is so far disconnected from resource consumption, because people's resource consumption does not resemble a bell curve. A private jet produces more CO2 in an hour (about 2 tonnes) than the average Indian produces in a year (about 1.9 tonnes).
The poor people having children aren't destroying the planet. Rich people, childless or not, are. (And yes, I acknowledge that I fall under the "rich" category here.)
I don't know you, but you probably don't fall on the category of "rich" in my mind.
Richer than an Indian farmer. Ok. I'm also rich then. I live in a house (not mine) and don't go hungry.
I don't even consider billionaires on the scale.....that is just an afront on humanity and shouldn't exist.
I think my personal resource consumption, if scaled up to the world population, would be devastating. That's what I mean by categorizing myself in the "rich." I might not be a billionaire, but I'm far, far above the global average, and still significantly above the national average for my nation.
Points to you, for self-awareness.
Based on currently available numbers, there are about 31 vacant housing units for every homeless person in the U.S.