It’s both fewer people and less consumption.
No one said legislating neccessarily. We’re doing it now anyways. Most people have the sense that the future won’t be kind to their kids and choose to jave fewer/none.
Comment on Dr. Thanos, PhD.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 6 days agoPersonally, My interpretation of degrowth is more bicycles and less plastic crap. I don’t think legislating birth rates will ever be an efficient strategy.
CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 6 days ago
So you’re saying the degrowth movement doesn’t need to do anything because people are having less kids anyway?
CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 5 days ago
No. I’m saying we don’t need to be heavy handed with reproductive rights because people are making the right choices here. Some policy encouragement would be helpful, but people can be free to choose for themselves.
We need a lot of policy work on lowering average consumption. Income inequality/poverty, planned obsalescence, right to repair, fossil fuels, food production, building codes and municipal design standards, public transit and electrification, habitat restoration, chemical and pollution regulation etc, all still need a lot of work.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 5 days ago
Yeah. All of that is ten times as worth the effort as worrying about birth rates.
heartSagan5@lemmy.zip 6 days ago
China would agree.