Except that’s not true at all “overpopulation” isn’t a major problem its resource extraction, waste, terrible distribution on and on boiling down to capitalism.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t lower our per-capita ecological footprint, we absolutely should, but that’s not sustainable.
Sure, there are a lot of quick wins to be had, especially in wasteful countries like the US, but the more you lower your footprint the harder it gets to reduce it even more. It will never be zero.
The way it looks now we’re outbreeding our ability to lower our footprint. What is the point of everyone lowering their footprint by 10% if we have 15% more people by the time we reach that?
Every reputable population growth estimate says we reach the peak world population in 70 years at ~10 billion people. We’re close to the top and after that it shrinks. Overpopulation is not a significant problem compared to climate change as long as we stop using fossil fuels. Green energy is looking like it’s starting to win thanks to… Mostly China making green power cheap… And I guess Trump making fossil fuels unaffordable…
Every reputable population growth estimate says we reach the peak world population in 70 years at ~10 billion people. We’re close to the top and after that it shrinks. Overpopulation is not a significant problem compared to climate
All wishful thinking. If you look at the actual numbers there’s no sign of a slowdown. But I guess fucking will go out of style in the coming years, right?
Overpopulation is not a significant problem compared to climate change as long as we stop using fossil fuels.
Overpopulation is the cause of global warming. There are now 4 times as many people as a hundred years ago. Do you really believe that climate change would have been a problem if our population was a quarter of what it is now?
Of course it would be! Fossil fuels are cheap and easy to extract. Energy consumption is directly correlated to quality of life. You think if there were fewer people they would just say “no thanks, we’ve had enough material wealth, just leave the cheap and easy energy in the ground, we’re good”
What in our history makes you think our resource usage is related to population? You said it yourself that most of the world is living in poverty and needs to increase their resource consumption to get to a decent quality of life. That’s clearly one of the things that would have happened with fewer people. The other would be whatever mega yachts would be if the rich were 4x richer… Maybe space yachts…
This anti-natalism thing you’ve got going is really rotting your mind.
I appreciate the other commenters disputing you, but I’ll also like to add that nations that support their citizens with more money and support have less population gains than those without support. The science behind that mostly suggests that people with comfortable lifestyles breed less and put more effort into the 1 or 2 kids they have (and often age out of being able to have 3+ anyway).
Also there’s the issue of quality. I’d argue our biggest problem in 2026 is the sheer ignorance of the masses; it’s logic like yours that defunds the programs that produce educated and critically minded adults. Financially stable childhoods help a lot in that regard. A human can be a net positive on the world, but without adequate support they end up being a significant detriment instead (usually as tools for the wealthy who exploit the land).
Also there’s the issue of quality. I’d argue our biggest problem in 2026 is the sheer ignorance of the masses; it’s logic like yours that defunds the programs that produce educated and critically minded adults. Financially stable childhoods help a lot in that regard.
There are few people who had a more financially stable childhood than a certain US president and I’d argue he’s currently the single most damaging person for the planet.
I wouldn’t be so sure, his father was a fucked up man; but he also wouldn’t be a good example as he’s certainly got something wrong with him. Same for quite a few higher ups and billionaires. About 1% of the population has sociopathic tendencies (and a higher amount in business leads, something like 4%).
Much more concerned about the people who elected him, and they are overwhelmingly undereducated and impoverished. Not that there aren’t always exceptions, though.
We don’t have an overpopulation problem, we have a resource distribution problem. Don’t you think it’s a little weird that we keep pushing this overpopulation narrative while the ultra-rich are having a dozen kids?
Resource distribution is a problem that needs to be solved but it’s a separate issue.
If one person produces 8 tons of carbon dioxide and 4 other people produce 0.5 tons, redistributing so now 5 people produce 2 tons each doesn’t fix anything.
Nonono, this is not a problem of individual people. The carbon that an individual person produces in any country is nothing compared to what a handful of powerful corporations produce. Buying into the narrative that we’re overpopulated is exactly what these corporations want you to do. Reducing population growth wouldn’t help with climate change because corporations would simply use that as excuse to produce more emissions.
Yes. Something you do for your own enjoyment which you are under no obligation to do.
Every major problem humanity faces at the moment, both at the global and local level, is caused by overpopulation. We should discourage breeding.
Except that’s not true at all “overpopulation” isn’t a major problem its resource extraction, waste, terrible distribution on and on boiling down to capitalism.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t lower our per-capita ecological footprint, we absolutely should, but that’s not sustainable.
Sure, there are a lot of quick wins to be had, especially in wasteful countries like the US, but the more you lower your footprint the harder it gets to reduce it even more. It will never be zero.
The way it looks now we’re outbreeding our ability to lower our footprint. What is the point of everyone lowering their footprint by 10% if we have 15% more people by the time we reach that?
Every reputable population growth estimate says we reach the peak world population in 70 years at ~10 billion people. We’re close to the top and after that it shrinks. Overpopulation is not a significant problem compared to climate change as long as we stop using fossil fuels. Green energy is looking like it’s starting to win thanks to… Mostly China making green power cheap… And I guess Trump making fossil fuels unaffordable…
All wishful thinking. If you look at the actual numbers there’s no sign of a slowdown. But I guess fucking will go out of style in the coming years, right?
Overpopulation is the cause of global warming. There are now 4 times as many people as a hundred years ago. Do you really believe that climate change would have been a problem if our population was a quarter of what it is now?
Of course it would be! Fossil fuels are cheap and easy to extract. Energy consumption is directly correlated to quality of life. You think if there were fewer people they would just say “no thanks, we’ve had enough material wealth, just leave the cheap and easy energy in the ground, we’re good”
What in our history makes you think our resource usage is related to population? You said it yourself that most of the world is living in poverty and needs to increase their resource consumption to get to a decent quality of life. That’s clearly one of the things that would have happened with fewer people. The other would be whatever mega yachts would be if the rich were 4x richer… Maybe space yachts…
This anti-natalism thing you’ve got going is really rotting your mind.
I appreciate the other commenters disputing you, but I’ll also like to add that nations that support their citizens with more money and support have less population gains than those without support. The science behind that mostly suggests that people with comfortable lifestyles breed less and put more effort into the 1 or 2 kids they have (and often age out of being able to have 3+ anyway).
Also there’s the issue of quality. I’d argue our biggest problem in 2026 is the sheer ignorance of the masses; it’s logic like yours that defunds the programs that produce educated and critically minded adults. Financially stable childhoods help a lot in that regard. A human can be a net positive on the world, but without adequate support they end up being a significant detriment instead (usually as tools for the wealthy who exploit the land).
There are few people who had a more financially stable childhood than a certain US president and I’d argue he’s currently the single most damaging person for the planet.
I wouldn’t be so sure, his father was a fucked up man; but he also wouldn’t be a good example as he’s certainly got something wrong with him. Same for quite a few higher ups and billionaires. About 1% of the population has sociopathic tendencies (and a higher amount in business leads, something like 4%).
Much more concerned about the people who elected him, and they are overwhelmingly undereducated and impoverished. Not that there aren’t always exceptions, though.
We don’t have an overpopulation problem, we have a resource distribution problem. Don’t you think it’s a little weird that we keep pushing this overpopulation narrative while the ultra-rich are having a dozen kids?
I don’t mind billionaires hoarding kids and wives and cars and houses. Take their money and that would disappear.
I’m 100% all for that. But until then, we’re discussing the real world and how it currently operates
Resource distribution is a problem that needs to be solved but it’s a separate issue.
If one person produces 8 tons of carbon dioxide and 4 other people produce 0.5 tons, redistributing so now 5 people produce 2 tons each doesn’t fix anything.
Nonono, this is not a problem of individual people. The carbon that an individual person produces in any country is nothing compared to what a handful of powerful corporations produce. Buying into the narrative that we’re overpopulated is exactly what these corporations want you to do. Reducing population growth wouldn’t help with climate change because corporations would simply use that as excuse to produce more emissions.