Then maybe it’s not only US and Europe the countries which should control birthrate.
The thing is that there is too many people. Land cannot house so many. We are destroying nature just because some people insist to bring more and more and more humans to this world.
There’s plenty of land. Consider that in 1930, Germany had 139 people per km^2, France had something around 65 people per km^2. The US today has only 38 per km^2. But the German or French citizen in 1930 didn’t use quite so many single use plastics.
Each human needs a LOT of land to live to their fullest.
Do you want to live like in the 30s only to house more people?
Also it’s an unsustainable point of view. If you defend letting people forever grow there’s going to be a hard natural stop to that. Because at some point nature will make you stop.
I support a stable point of view. One billion of human beings on earth. Plenty space for us and for nature, les pollution, less emissions. Lots of chances for massive natural reserves…
1 billion people living unsustainably is still unsustainable. Birth rates in the most unsustainable countries are dropping, and this is ultimately a good thing, but it’s insufficient on its own.
By simple math each of those 1 billion people should be able to live with 10 times more resources at hand that if we had 10 billion people.
I don’t think there’s a way to live better without resource consumption and environmental damage. So the question keeps being the same. More people living worse or less people living better.
US population is only growing due to immigration. Birth rates are well below replacement rate.
https://www.axios.com/2024/04/25/us-births-drop-2023
Then maybe it’s not only US and Europe the countries which should control birthrate.
The thing is that there is too many people. Land cannot house so many. We are destroying nature just because some people insist to bring more and more and more humans to this world.
There’s plenty of land. Consider that in 1930, Germany had 139 people per km^2, France had something around 65 people per km^2. The US today has only 38 per km^2. But the German or French citizen in 1930 didn’t use quite so many single use plastics.
That’s pretty idiotic. We don’t have a shortage of land. We have a shortage of land within a reasonable commuting distance of job centers.
Which is then wasted on urban sprawl and parking lots. We don’t have a land problem or an overpopulation problem. We have a sustainability problem.
Each human needs a LOT of land to live to their fullest.
Do you want to live like in the 30s only to house more people?
Also it’s an unsustainable point of view. If you defend letting people forever grow there’s going to be a hard natural stop to that. Because at some point nature will make you stop.
I support a stable point of view. One billion of human beings on earth. Plenty space for us and for nature, les pollution, less emissions. Lots of chances for massive natural reserves…
1 billion people living unsustainably is still unsustainable. Birth rates in the most unsustainable countries are dropping, and this is ultimately a good thing, but it’s insufficient on its own.
By simple math each of those 1 billion people should be able to live with 10 times more resources at hand that if we had 10 billion people.
I don’t think there’s a way to live better without resource consumption and environmental damage. So the question keeps being the same. More people living worse or less people living better.