Comment on Dr. Thanos, PhD.
CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 6 days agoIt’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.
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.
CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Incorrect. Getting to true sustainability is increadibly difficult, let alone for the 8-10 billion people on earth. But, if you build a sustainable civilization for 2-4 billion people, it is much easier to achieve, and ypu can return a lot of land back to wilderness to allow the rest of earth’s species to flourish. Its an essential component.
Ecologists talk about it in terms of I=PAT. Impact = people x affluence x technology. If you cut the number of people, everything becomes easier.