Comment on Resources

Sidhean@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I was going to say “No one is saying that”, but there are many going down that road.

  The preferable approach is degrowth. A lower birthrate leading to a smaller population with no deaths and lower consumption until human civilization can not only fit with our planetary boundaries, but restore a lot of wildlife and wildlands.

  source

  • Eq0@literature.cafe ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    This is already happening, but i don’t think it’s fast enough: with the exceeded life expectancy, we are first seeing an increase and aging of population. Only after the wave of now 50-60 year olds will be dead will we see a stable degrowth. Is that soon enough? Sure it’s preferable to extermination?

    source
  • A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I’m not keen on a society were seniors are the majority of the population, it would be a disaster.

    source

    • Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I’m not keen on a society dominated by resource exhaustion, grossly exceeded planetary boundaries leading to ecological overshoot and collapse and billions of early deaths due to climate change, pollution and conflict as everyone fights for whatever is left.

      An againg society is a necessary step towards a sustainable population. Anything other than a sustainable population (number of people x consumption amount) will, by definition, not be sustained. A collapse will be devastating. A managed descent will have difficulties but could save humanity and the biosphere as we know it.

      source
• deathgrindfreak@awful.systems ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  The number of people basically advocating for this in the comments is honestly depressing

  source