Embed Notice

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.