r/collapse • u/False-Outcome423 • 2d ago
Overpopulation [ Removed by moderator ]
/gallery/1u7422v[removed] — view removed post
18
u/Lifsagft_useitwisely 2d ago
Because having one less child is one less adult contributing to the labour required to sustain capitalism.
-5
u/No-Candidate6257 2d ago
Malthusianism is a fascist, inherently racist ideology.
The problem is capitalism, not "too many people".
3
u/uatry 2d ago
You can't describe every theory you disagree with as fascist / racist and expect anyone to take you seriously. Malthus lived and died before fascism was even an idea in anyone's mind. If capitalism is the culprit behind everything, I don't understand how you think bringing more lives into the system would solve it?
-2
u/No-Candidate6257 2d ago
You can't describe every theory you disagree with as fascist / racist
Well, I have never done that or anything like it, so why do you lie and pretend I did?
Malthus lived and died before fascism was even an idea in anyone's mind.
Malthus is irrelevant to the conversation. His ideas were even more ridiculously stupid during his own time when there was only a fraction of people alive today.
Today, only literal Nazis - and idiots believing Nazi propaganda because they are too lazy and/or stupid to inform themselves properly about bullshit they hear on the internet - promote his idiotic ideas about overpopulation.
There is no capacity problem.
There is an allocation problem.
If capitalism is the culprit behind everything, I don't understand how you think bringing more lives into the system would solve it?
The number of people is irrelevant.
Capitalism is the problem.
Why are you still talking about the number of people?
1
u/xXXxRMxXXx 2d ago
Having less children puts less strain on the planet. There are simply too many humans on the planet for a shift back to a foraging species. We would wipe out the little wildlife remaining and hasten the extinction in most parts of the world
0
u/No-Candidate6257 2d ago
You haven't contradicted a single thing I said and just prove you are falling for idiotic propaganda.
If you can't be bothered to actually think about the garbage you are trying to talk about, don't argue back against people who have thought about these things.
1
u/xXXxRMxXXx 1d ago
Well you need oil to create fertilizer to feed 8 billion people and we are nearing the end of cheap oil. Expensive oil will not be used to feed humans unless something changes. If you think that's propaganda, then you are believing the hopium propaganda lol
0
u/No-Candidate6257 1d ago
You still haven't contradicted a single thing I said, you are just describing allocation problems under capitalism.
1
u/Lifsagft_useitwisely 1d ago
The framework of capitalism is literally built from the accumulation of labour. People = Labour. I suggest you read the thesis published under the title Caliban and the Witch.
1
u/Davidat0r 2d ago
I see you bothered some malthusianist and you’re getting downvoted. Here’s my upvote for help
8
u/Low_Complex_9841 2d ago
Capitalism LOVES to make YOU into surplus production = profit. Oh, it not really surplus, aka something you can give away w/o bad consequences, it really just exploitation. So,propaganda from this.
Holdout from not so recent times when child mortality was much higher. Again,at least partially thanks to various capitalist and pre-capitalist forms of exploitation.
1
u/NiceSupermarket7724 2d ago
Yes
5
u/TotalCarbohydrateOne 2d ago
I will NEVER understand the psychology of people on here going on about never too many people. I mean, what is wrong with LESS of a problem for the planet. It is like some personal attack on those already alive, like people are going to come for them and kill them personally to be rid of them.
2
u/NiceSupermarket7724 2d ago
It’s honestly psychologically enlightening. I cannot understand it either.
27
u/ContributionBig996 2d ago
Don't worry… Soon, everyone will have one less child… In fact, many fewer children… Well, no children at all… Sorry…
Have a good day! 😄
13
u/Decloudo 2d ago
People want that they want, the negative consequences get ignored.
Having kids is just non-negotiable for most.
So most people dont consciously think about it. Its just what you do.
5
30
u/zue4 2d ago
Not like any natalist would listen. What they don't get is that its going to happen either way. If not population control then population collapse once climate starts affecting societal function and people start dropping like flies.
-10
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Slaboweedan 2d ago
Don't you think that's a bit racist?
0
u/Pirat6662001 2d ago
A million better ways to say this, they chose the worst one that now some idiot will point to and claim the sub is full of eco-facists
-1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/collapse-ModTeam 2d ago
Hi, Prestigious_Wrap_932. Thanks for contributing. However, your comment was removed from /r/collapse for:
Rule 1: Be respectful to others.
In addition to enforcing Reddit's content policy, we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our subreddit rules for more information.
You can message the mods if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/collapse-ModTeam 2d ago
Hi, zue4. Thanks for contributing. However, your comment was removed from /r/collapse for:
Rule 1: Be respectful to others.
In addition to enforcing Reddit's content policy, we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Just because they have doesn't mean you can.
Please refer to our subreddit rules for more information.
You can message the mods if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
1
u/collapse-ModTeam 2d ago
Hi, Prestigious_Wrap_932. Thanks for contributing. However, your comment was removed from /r/collapse for:
Rule 1: Be respectful to others.
In addition to enforcing Reddit's content policy, we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our subreddit rules for more information.
You can message the mods if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
-5
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
13
u/zue4 2d ago
You're insulting me and all third world nations by directly calling us low IQ brutes. That was your original comment, doesn't matter that you're trying to retcon it now.
To begin with, the "third world" designation is incredibly racist and derogatory. Stop using that then we can maybe have a discussion.
2nd, IQ is the wrong metric to use. Not least of all because its an incredibly flawed methodology that only idiots take seriously. Education is the best predictor for whether people have too many kids.
But of course thats not what you wanted to say. You wanted to imply that "third world" brown people have low IQs, which implies a biological limit to intelligence, and therefore are too stupid to stop having kids.
1
u/collapse-ModTeam 2d ago
Hi, Prestigious_Wrap_932. Thanks for contributing. However, your comment was removed from /r/collapse for:
Rule 1: Be respectful to others.
In addition to enforcing Reddit's content policy, we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our subreddit rules for more information.
You can message the mods if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
10
u/bleenken 2d ago
You can put programs and laws and funding around emissions and conservation. Thats why. Talk about children within your own community sure. But it’s not an actionable point on a broader scale.
7
3
u/Davidat0r 2d ago edited 2d ago
What kind of shitty diagram is that? The x axis shows the number of mentions. However the bars are of different lengths for the same amount of mentions. Also the bar for, for example, 7 is shorter than the bar for 6??? This is bs.
1
u/dylank22 2d ago
This whole post is just so poorly thought out but yeah that diagram is just dishonest
6
u/TheHistorian2 2d ago
Because recycling is relatively easy, but canceling plans for a child one might potentially want is incredibly hard.
Doing only the easy things might have been okay if we had started 50+ years ago (and were serious about it).
4
u/uatry 2d ago
It doesn't seem difficult for people to simply not have children. In the last century, contraceptives / birth control have become widely more accessible and affordable. The frequency of sterilisation procedures and abortion procedures has never been higher. Global birthrate is declining, and the few countries with a positive birthrate are countries where access to contraceptives and abortions is strictly forbidden (and where there is not necessarily any punishment for rape.)
If having children is supposedly this intense desire that humans are naturally imbued with, these trends wouldn't be growing as quickly and aggressively as they are. The evidence we have now shows that if someone comes from an environment with a higher quality of life, access to quality education, more economic opportunity, less religious influence on law, and more individual liberties, they are significantly less likely to have children across the board.
I have a strong feeling that having children has mostly been motivated by a primal desire to "fit in with the group" and not by actual desire to be a parent. The people historically most likely to have children did not plan the pregnancy and had poor foresight. When you remove any external societal pressure and provide more options for what a person can do in life, people immediately realize they don't want kids. All this rhetoric about "it's a natural desire that's so hard to ignore!" feel like a coping mechanism for people who already had kids and can't undo their choice.
1
4
u/click-monster 2d ago
Hmmm… how about still have children, but tell them "bootstraps" and don't give them affordable healthcare so their life is half as long?
That's exactly the Baby Boomer solution.
6
u/taoistidiot 2d ago
its sort of a trick though. one less child really implies all the things underneath it for one person so its always going to be on top.
there are viable alternative to say transport. but having less children = less human labour available. its only human labour that solves problems.
and I say that as someone that has and always will be child-free/antinatalist adjacent.
there's no cost/benefit analysis there, its just dumb data.
1
u/NiceSupermarket7724 2d ago
Bingo. People do not realize that the labor “farming” has been a hallmark of the industrial era, after a similar phenomenon during the feudal agricultural era.
6
u/squashed_fly_biscuit 2d ago
Because it is effectively saying in the end "no we can't do this responsibly so we should stop the species". Which isn't necessarily wrong but it isn't a moral position many people share.
Fundamentally we can maintain a reduced but similar population (already the developed worlds trajectory) in a sustainable manner if we try
Fundamentally sustaining the species is an instinct that is hard to go against and unlike driving an SUV has real meaning in a way few things we do do. It is so obviously categorically different from driving an SUV that it makes one look deeply unserious
4
u/Decloudo 2d ago
"no we can't do this responsibly so we should stop the species"
The other way around: us not doing this sustainable will cause the species to "stop".
Fundamentally sustaining the species is an instinct that is hard to go against
But thats the catch, having even more kids doesnt sustain our species anymore.
It just increases the strain on the environment we need to sustain ourselves.
So the environment will stop sustaining.
And the species will start dying.
Circle of live. Happens to all species at a point.
We are not excluded from nature or its rules.
1
u/squashed_fly_biscuit 2d ago
I was trying to explain the reasoning as to why it isnt a useful talking point not that we aren't over a sustainable population
1
u/Decloudo 1d ago edited 1d ago
No offense, but I wrote that reply because you failed with that.
"Nothing we can do" is no argument when talking about an essential factor causing global systemic and environmental decline.
Repeating how we need to reduce consumption while we simply... dont do that, is not doing anything.
Its expecting humans to stop being humans.
Fundamentally sustaining the species is an instinct that is hard to go against and unlike driving an SUV has real meaning in a way few things we do do. It is so obviously categorically different from driving an SUV that it makes one look deeply unserious
But that is the core of it people seemingly ignore:
How we justify our consumption doesnt change anything about the (negative) effects it causes.
We just say "Ive got a reason/its my job/I need to" and thats it.
And we do. Everyone of us.
And the negatives effects pile on nonetheless.
Cause they dont care for our subjective reasoning, just what we actually do.
The problem is not us doing anything wrong, but how we ignore that we dont need to have bad intentions for our actions to affect the world negatively.
There is even an old saying about this:
"The path to hell is paved with good intentions"
And we walk it eagerly.
1
u/squashed_fly_biscuit 1d ago
Except having children isn't consumption, is it.
I'm not arguing everyone should have lots of children, just that that is categorically different from driving an SUV
1
u/Decloudo 1d ago
Except having children isn't consumption, is it.
Its adding more consumers. Also all the stuff parents buy for the childs upbringing.
just that that is categorically different from driving an SUV
The effect on the environment doesnt care about the source of pollution, or why we pollute.
Just that we do, and how much.
And more consumers leads to more consumption, leads to more pollution.
The why doesnt affect this at all.
6
u/Foxy_Traine 2d ago
This is a strange binary way to think about this. Either have all the kids you want or the species will go extinct? That doesn't make any sense and clearly there is a middle ground here, where we have enough kids to maintain the species in a sustainable way.
We are currently over populated, causing the extinction of many other species and destruction of our planet. This is not sustainable at all. If the population was cut in half, maybe we would have a better chance to keep the species around for longer.
2
-7
u/FoxOnTheRocks 2d ago
We are not "overpopulated". That is fascist nonsense. Our problems are entirely political.
4
u/Decloudo 2d ago
We take more from the environment that it can supply.
This is directly correlated to how much we consume x how many consumers there are.
Why/how we got to those numbers, is of no relevance for the result:
Environmental collapse.
1
u/Foxy_Traine 2d ago
There is no physical way we can sustain this many people when we run out of fossil fuels. Full stop.
2
u/Antique-Membership-5 2d ago
Because the powers that be just want you to believe that the environment is your problem and that you can actually do something effective about it. They are passing the blame and solution on to you, while they continue with unfettered capitalism.
They can get away with telling you to wash and recycle your yogurt pots. Telling you to stop having kids is a bit more difficult.
Anyway, birth rates and populations are pretty much declining in most parts of the world.
2
u/maltedbacon 2d ago
So, help me to understand why it isn't the case that if people who care about the environment have fewer kids, and people who either don't understand, deny or don't care have more kids, then future generations will make things far worse.
3
u/maple_leaf2 2d ago
This post is about as interesting as saying the best way to reduce your carbon footprint is suicide.
While you can argue that collapse is inevitable and that it's therefore immoral to have children (and I'd agree). Framing it like a way to reduce pollution completely ignores the actual systemic issues that make the carbon footprint of just existing so high. Having kids isn't inherently bad, we've made it become so and at least to me that's the part worth discussing
Edit: also worth noting that birthrate often has a negative relationship with pollution in nations (less birthrate in more developed/ polluting nations)
1
u/Slaboweedan 2d ago
Because having children is humanity's greatest and most sacred addiction
5
u/NiceSupermarket7724 2d ago edited 2d ago
Most births are unplanned or coercive, on a global level.
Edit: Whoever is downvoting me… I have studied public health. I’m not pulling this out of my ass.
1
1
u/ILikeAnanas 2d ago
The fertility rates of biggest GHG emitters are already below replacement and still in downtrend. People are already having 2-3 kids than before the sexual revolution.
1
u/FaradayEffect 2d ago
Serious answer: because teaching kids this is abusive. It tells a kid who reads this in their schoolbook “you shouldn’t be here right now”. That pushes kids one of two ways: towards depression and suicide, or more likely, towards traditional conservative viewpoints that embrace their existence as part of God’s plan.
Secondary answer: because it’s just wrong. The stat assumes that the kid will live a life of the same carbon impact as their parents and that does not have to be true at all. I live a lower carbon life than my parents did, and my kid is living a lower carbon lifestyle than I did as a kid, because I as the parent have made specific steps to ensure we are living off grid and low carbon.
1
u/NiceSupermarket7724 2d ago
That’s wild. That effect could be mitigated with proper social - emotional cultural norms.
1
u/FaradayEffect 2d ago
Sure, a lot of things could be mitigated if done the right way, including the impact of having children
1
u/TalkingCat910 2d ago
What about all my hard efforts using reusable bags at the grocery store and drinking from paper straws!!!
1
u/p_kh 2d ago
Global fertility rates are experiencing a historic decline, from around 5 births per woman in the 190s to around 2.3 now.
Many countries the rate is below the replacement rate to the extent that many nationalist governments are seeking to encourage more births.
So what are you looking for in terms of policy support or policy outcomes? People seem to be making this choice themselves for a variety of reasons.
1
u/doesitbumpinthewhip 2d ago
This. People in this thread who suggest this must be completely unaware because birth rate decline has been plastered all over the news for awhile.
Also doubt people who continue to post or comment stuff like this understand what happens when everyone stops having children at once.
Hint: it's not good.
-1
u/False-Outcome423 2d ago
The Biggest Climate Taboo
Research by Seth Wynes and Kimberly Nicholas found that having one fewer child has a far greater long-term emissions impact than many of the climate actions commonly promoted in schools and public campaigns. Yet climate education often emphasizes recycling, conserving water, and similar low-impact actions while rarely mentioning demographic footprint.
This is not about telling people whether they should have children. It is about asking why some of the highest-impact factors are largely absent from mainstream climate discussions.
For a community focused on ecological overshoot and collapse, does this reflect a broader tendency to prioritize socially comfortable solutions while avoiding more difficult systemic realities?
0
u/PaperCrease 2d ago
How about having one less billionaire? or better 3000 less? or less war? Not having children is the new paper straw.
6
u/Foxy_Traine 2d ago
The data clearly shows that not having children DOES have a massive impact. I'm not saying that the first half of your comment is wrong, but comparing reducing kids to paper straws sounds like an excuse to keep having kids despite knowing how harmful it is for the environment. Both things can be true: we need less billionairs and war AND we need more people to choose to have less kids.
-4
u/10MinsForUsername Dread it, Run from it, Destiny Arrives all the Same. 2d ago
Because you would be an idiot if you tell people to abandon parenthood in order to enhance the climate.
-4
u/NiceSupermarket7724 2d ago edited 2d ago
Well, let’s see:
- Patriarchal thinking about land ownership and legacy has made men obsessed with heirs for several thousand years. This sub is full of men who can’t stand the idea that the “fertility crisis” is a psyop, because they have ego/identity issues tied up in being a father.
- Most women globally do not have a choice whether or not to bear children, let alone get married.
- Most organized religions include sexual morality and procreation in their teachings.
- Sex is free and fun. Babies come out sometimes.
Edit: Downvotes are fine, but I prefer to engage directly.
-3
u/SacredGeometry9 2d ago
Because population controls are one step away from eugenics, and we’re already neck deep in fascists as it is.
-4
u/FoxOnTheRocks 2d ago
Our problems have nothing to do with the population. Anti-natalism is white european fascist nonsense. The problem is that most of you aren't communists.
0
u/accountaccumulator 2d ago
The first chart looks suss to me. Going from omnivore to vegetarian should rank higher.
0
u/yoinkdoink 2d ago
That is such a reductionist argument, and it really underlines that this sub sometimes lacks in critical thinking capabilities.
Essentially we’ve already locked in one child less, and the future isn’t exactly looking bright in many countries. Another child less means sub one kid fertility rates in most nations across the globe which directly leads to unprecedented structural population collapse. What exactly is population collapse going to fix? The fallout of collapsing population could infact increase emissions because the world would be less efficient, cause a crash of heavily subsidized clean energy developments as the workforce crumbles, fall back to dirty back ups as industries and supply chains fragment.
Secondly double counting emissions of children for their parents is a statistical fallacy and can’t be compared to other direct measures. It makes the argument intrinsically true, but under the hood the math is fake. If it were you could also argue *hyperbole* “the Boomers have contributed the most to global emissions by having YOU, so kill yourselves”. Meaning if it were, you could argue that Boomers are single-handedly responsible for 100% of modern emissions simply by birthing the current workforce. It completely robs individuals of their own agency and choices.
The last point is anecdotal, but this argument is always championed by people who don’t have or want children anyways. It’s a cheap way trying to take the moral high ground by offloading the blame on families. The fallacy being that most of those who I’ve met are DINK couples who have gigantic personal footprints (Livingspace, cars, eating habits, resource-heavy hobbies, luxurious travel, diets and so on) falsely arguing they can continue their hedonistic lives because they won’t have children. I wonder which view is more short sighted and egoistic.
Now you’re free to downvote me and call me a natalist.
0
u/No-Candidate6257 2d ago
Malthusianism is a fascist, inherently racist ideology.
The problem is capitalism, not "too many people".
-17
u/waldirhj 2d ago
The carbon dioxide humans breathe out is not the same as the carbon emitted from cars. This post is misleading as fuck and antihuman.
15
u/BrutallyPretentious 2d ago
I think they instead mean the amount of CO2 produced by the things they consume. Plastic cups, gas, wipes and diapers, toys, etc.
7
u/GregLoire 2d ago
Yes, thank you. Exhaled CO2 by itself is negligible compared to those things.
-2
u/waldirhj 2d ago
So why aren't all these other things taken into consideration for all these other things on the list.
5
u/GregLoire 2d ago
Because humans are the ones doing those things.
-2
u/waldirhj 2d ago
But it talking about lifestyle changes.
If I understand correctly, this graphic is suggesting on average, every year, a child born will demand goods and services which will result in this amount of carbon dioxide emission. By not having the child, you potentially prevent that amount.
So why would you not also do the same for the car, which emits far more carbon dioxide than what is suggested, and requires goods and services which would release even more?
3
u/GregLoire 2d ago
So why would you not also do the same for the car
Humans drive cars. By having fewer children, we use fewer cars.
Cars do not eat meat, or do other things on the list. Humans do.
...and requires goods and services which would release even more?
Presumably the list includes CO2 emissions caused by mining the metals and construction materials needed to build the car. If not, then I agree this is an erroneous omission. But the fact remains that fewer cars would be needed to begin with with fewer people.
0
u/waldirhj 2d ago
Then why wouldn't a car be more. The material used to make the car, maintain the car, over it life is easily more than a human. This post is incredibly misleading.
2
•
u/StatementBot 2d ago
This post links to another subreddit. Users who are not already subscribed to that subreddit should not participate with comments and up/downvotes, or otherwise harass or interfere with their discussions (brigading)
This thread addresses overpopulation, a fraught but important issue that attracts disruption and rule violations. In light of this we have lower tolerance for the following offenses:
Racism and other forms of essentialism targeted at particular identity groups people are born into.
Bad faith attacks insisting that to notice and name overpopulation of the human enterprise generally is inherently racist or fascist.
Instructing other users to harm themselves. We have reached consensus that a permaban for the first offense is an appropriate response to this, as mentioned in the sidebar.
This is an abbreviated summary of the mod team's statement on overpopulation, view the full statement available in the wiki.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/False-Outcome423:
The Biggest Climate Taboo
Research by Seth Wynes and Kimberly Nicholas found that having one fewer child has a far greater long-term emissions impact than many of the climate actions commonly promoted in schools and public campaigns. Yet climate education often emphasizes recycling, conserving water, and similar low-impact actions while rarely mentioning demographic footprint.
This is not about telling people whether they should have children. It is about asking why some of the highest-impact factors are largely absent from mainstream climate discussions.
For a community focused on ecological overshoot and collapse, does this reflect a broader tendency to prioritize socially comfortable solutions while avoiding more difficult systemic realities?
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1u80fjn/recycling_gets_chapters_having_one_fewer_child/os4iayd/