• lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      Are you suggesting that there’s no limit to how many people the resources we have available to us can support?

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Oh, there probably is. All things being equal (and that’s the important factor) there is next-to-no chance of us ever reaching such a bizarre amount of people - you could triple the amount of people on earth, and, all things being equal, we still wouldn’t be “overpopulated.”

        However, things are not equal - which means we are already existing way beyond that which our ecology can support. And it’s all thanks to capitalist parasites - a very small group of people sucking everything dry at the expense of everyone and everything else.

    • rchive@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Malthus and Erlich, right wingers?

      I don’t see many right wing people on this list. Thoughts?

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Whether Malthus himself was a right-winger or not isn’t really important… it doesn’t change how the trope of overpopulation has been used to protect power and privilege (ie, the whole point of right-wing ideology). For instance, there is a very good reason why white supremacists support the criminalization of women’s health care in (supposedly) “white” countries while demonizing 3rd world countries for their (supposedly) “explosive population growth.”

        It’s a very old trope that flattens human consumption and therefore camouflages the reality that certain classes of people consume resources at astronomical rates in comparison with the rest. It’s utility in shielding class hierarchies from scrutiny should be perfectly obvious.