Conversation

Notices

1. Erik Uden :verified: (erik@social.uden.ai)'s status on Tuesday, 02-May-2023 22:44:47 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.

   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Tuesday, 02-May-2023 22:44:38 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • Fynh
     @Erik @fynhv meat is a much more dense source of nutrition than corn, wheat, rye, or soy (common feed crops). The problem is not that we keep cows. The problem is how centralized the whole farming system has become and how much extra input is required for a large scale farm to operate. There are cattle farms that graze the cattle on natural grasses rather than relying on a feed lot. That meat turns out to be healthier for you too.
     
     We are omnivorous animals. Every inch of our body from the placement of our eyes to the organization of our digestive tract suggests we are predators. Arguing for the entire species to become vegetarian or vegan seems to be against nature. I for one will choose eggs and meat over bugs and soy any day. That said I raise as much of my own food as I can in my current situation, and I'm always looking for ways to improve that or supplement it without relying on the food distributed from farms that conduct business in ways I do not approve of.
   • Erik Uden :verified: (erik@social.uden.ai)'s status on Tuesday, 02-May-2023 22:44:40 JST Erik Uden :verified:

     in reply to

     • Fynh

     Overuse that happens through a capitalist system. No store nor individual just decided they wanted to throw away so much food or begin the meaningless cycle of meat hunger (producing food for farm animals which, if directly fed to humans, could feed the entire planet 8 times over), but were forced to do so when acting in their own best interest.

     We need systemic change and can’t, or rather shouldn’t, just hope that people will stop consuming so much. That isn’t how it works when our entire economic system is built around consumption.

   • Fynh (fynhv@friendica.opensocial.space)'s status on Tuesday, 02-May-2023 22:44:46 JST Fynh

     in reply to
     @Erik Not only the unjust distribution, but also the overuse of mostly the rich countries.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Tuesday, 02-May-2023 22:52:06 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • canusfeminacanis
     @Erik @canusfeminacanis > Now, veganism, zero homelessness, no poverty nor hunger, and redistristribution of wealth sounds a lot better than “decreasing population size” i.e. genocide.
     
     sounds utopian to me but hey :shrug:
     
     I think you ignore a lot of human behavior thinking that if you just take stuff from people group x and give it to people group y then all the worlds problems are solved.
   • Erik Uden :verified: (erik@social.uden.ai)'s status on Tuesday, 02-May-2023 22:52:07 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.

   • canusfeminacanis (canusfeminacanis@mastodon.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 02-May-2023 22:52:11 JST canusfeminacanis

     in reply to

     @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.

   • Erik Uden :verified: (erik@social.uden.ai)'s status on Tuesday, 02-May-2023 22:52:13 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.

   • canusfeminacanis (canusfeminacanis@mastodon.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 02-May-2023 22:52:14 JST canusfeminacanis

     in reply to

     @Erik

     Well, it's both....

   • gvs (gvs@rebelbase.site)'s status on Tuesday, 02-May-2023 22:52:28 JST gvs

     in reply to

     • canusfeminacanis
     I opt out of both. The control state needed to redistribute and limit where we can live is more dangerous the any other disaster that we might face (if any)
     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.