• Domille@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    That, and the planet cannot sustain our population with our current systems. Why have a kid when you know their future is doomed?

    • Navi1101@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I forget where I heard this stat, but the Earth could support 12 billion people if resources were distributed equitably. But, alas, :gestures broadly:

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, the Earth can sustain 12b people if everyone lives in barracks and eats shit. If you want to have any comforts in your life, current population should be reduced dramatically.

    • DulyNoted@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s the funny thing to me about this. There’s a direct contradiction between the needs of capitalism and the needs of the planet. Infinite growth, overpopulation, it’s all grand for $$$

      The economy requires growth, but the actual planet requires less people. The only sustainable countries on earth right now are places like Japan, where the economy is crumbling due to the aging population.

      Really makes it clear that our artificial systems aren’t in sync with our actual needs.