Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Tristan B. V. Kildaire ??? (deavmi@gleasonator.com)'s status on Tuesday, 02-May-2023 17:52:16 JST Tristan B. V. Kildaire ???

   in reply to

   • canusfeminacanis
   • Erik Uden :verified:
   @canusfeminacanis @Erik
   I think voluntary charitable work, smaller state could honestly help.
   
   I'm trying to live up to the former, by parting way with my savings I want to donate. 6K so far, just need to sit down, take a look at some charities (and we have some doing really good work here, I mean some kids making it into cricket teams and really good schools). I can go on about how huge the South African state is, but I would just be complaining - and they are not bad complaints but I ought to do something atleast.
   
   When I earn more I'll bump up the amount I put aside for donations. I won't find an excuse to not donate, I am priveleged enough to stay in my parents' house, I can save - least I can do is help my fellow South Africans. One child saved and given an opportunity is one enough.
   @canusfeminacanis
   • lainy likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Erik Uden :verified: (erik@social.uden.ai)'s status on Tuesday, 02-May-2023 17:52:17 JST Erik Uden :verified:

     in reply to

     • canusfeminacanis

     The entire population of planet earth could live in a US state like Wisconsin if they’d live in the density of New York City. Now imagine some walkable city superblock concept with plenty of greenery and nature and you got yourself a way to prevent any human interaction with most of nature at all.

     You are not giving any logical argument as to why you think there are too many people alive today. We have enough resources to feed them, yet hundreds of millions go hungry. We have enough resources to house them, yet billions are homeless.

     You truly think the issue lies with the people, not the distribution of resources?

     Humanity always had poor, always had hungry, always had homeless, no matter the amount of people alive. Yet you look at poverty, hunger, homelessness, etc. today and say the way to fix that is by reducing population size?

     The distribution isn’t a hard to solve issue. The issue lies within the capitalist incentive of our global economy to act in the interest of capital, not people. If our economy was focused on feeding people instead of making luxury products for the rich, we’d have zero people alive today still going hungry.

     Again, the monoculture nowadays commonly done in agriculture isn’t something humans have just decided to do - the profit motive forces each corporation and individual to do so. Additionally so much land is merely used to create food for animals, not people! Make veganism the norm, you can feed the world.

     Additionally, my argument that populations stagnate in growth the moment their country gets to a certain level of wealth (demographic change) isn’t discussed in your comment at all - by simply redistributing wealth we’d have a fixed, if not declining, number of people anyway.

     Now, veganism, zero homelessness, no poverty nor hunger, and redistristribution of wealth sounds a lot better than “decreasing population size” i.e. genocide.

   • Embed this notice
     canusfeminacanis (canusfeminacanis@mastodon.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 02-May-2023 17:52:18 JST canusfeminacanis

     in reply to

     • Erik Uden :verified:

     @Erik

     Erik, it is both. We do have the food and material resources to get through any number of crises, but the distribution is a whole other pathetic issue.

     Add to that the development of Agri practices to ensure land decreases in productivity and access .

     There are way too many people, too. Wild animals are suffering from too many people encroaching on their territory.

     It's never just one thing that causes problems.

   • Embed this notice
     Erik Uden :verified: (erik@social.uden.ai)'s status on Tuesday, 02-May-2023 17:52:19 JST Erik Uden :verified:

     in reply to

     • canusfeminacanis

     No. We have enough food to feed the planet 8 times over. It’s distribution of resources, not amount of people. Wouldn’t it be awesome if the people running our economic system made you think the amount of people alive today are the problem, not them?

     Additionally, birth rates are deeply tied to wealth, so even to that extent the amount of people alive today is due to our broken global economic system.

   • Embed this notice
     canusfeminacanis (canusfeminacanis@mastodon.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 02-May-2023 17:52:20 JST canusfeminacanis

     in reply to

     • Erik Uden :verified:

     @Erik

     Well, it's both....

   • Embed this notice
     Erik Uden :verified: (erik@social.uden.ai)'s status on Tuesday, 02-May-2023 17:52:21 JST Erik Uden :verified:

     The word “overpopulation” makes it seem as if the issue lies with the amount of human beings alive today, while in reality the issue is the unjust distribution of resources.