[oulu2006]

Not sure why you're getting downvoted, my guess is the reference to COVID.

The earth is currently overpopulated for the system we have in-place to feed it. We are very inefficient in resource usage and waste over 1/2 the food we produce each year. COVID isn't the answer to this problem, but your point is valid.

[imtringued]

It's definitively the reference to COVID. Telling people to die from a preventable cause is conflicting with the rest of the message.

[kortex]

I mean if your message is "too many humans are bad for the planet, so if I die of Covid, so be it" at least it's mostly consistent.

The part I object to is the lack of masks leading to spreading CoV2 to those who haven't volunteered to get out of the gene pool.

[foxdev]

I adapted an old saying for the new reality: "Your right to risk your life stops at my respiratory system."

[dustinmoris]

Do you know anyone who died because they volunteered?

Besides that, when I was 10 years old and I asked at that time 30-40 year old people to not smoke cigarettes indoors because the passive smoking was damaging my young lungs and can lead to severe cancer and early death I was told that this is none of my business. Those people voluneered to damange their own health and knowingly also damanged my and other children's health. Now the same people are in their advanced age and demand from me to wear a mask because they don't want to bear the consequences of their earlier decisions. They essentially harmed themselves, and now they want to harm me again so that I have to carry the burden on my shoulders for their own wrongdoing. No thank you very much. I had COVID and my body fought it off in no time and I feel great. Other people have got their own immune system to deal with it. It's none of my business after all, like I was told.

[jschwartzi]

So your solution to the problem is to just do as those 30-40 year olds did? This isn't a revolution that can be won with retribution. You have to be better than the people you're rallying against. Any time you sink to their level it's a tool they will use against you. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

[dustinmoris]

It’s not preventable without harming other people as a result. My point was about unsustainable measures and that is definitely true. Sure, try to prevent getting COVID, but if that involves to harm other people, which it currently does, then you have zero support from me. If people die then at least they should die because of how nature intended us to die, which is from old age and becoming unhealthy. People should not die from being young and hungry which is exactly what the current response to COVID does.

[ntsplnkv2]

The population exists because we can, in fact, feed it, right now.

[AnimalMuppet]

"Feed it right now" is true. "Feed it sustainably" - that is, be able to keep feeding it - is also something we care about. And there are some worrying signs about sustainability - the Ogallala Aquifer, the collapse of ocean fish stocks, and so on.

Does that prove it's unsustainable? No. The way to prove it's unsustainable is to have a massive die-off, which is not a way I'm interested in proving anything.

[ntsplnkv2]

A catastrophic failure in any food chain can make ANY population have a massive die off.

> that is, be able to keep feeding it - is also something we care about.

This is disingenuous. In general, no one cares about the famine in Syria except starving Syrians. When's the last time you heard that on the news over a Trump tweet?

Enforcing population limits in theory sounds like a great idea - in human practice, it will just be an excuse for genocide. The only ethical way to do it is to bring all of humanity out of poverty - which rich people do not want to pay for.

[AnimalMuppet]

I don't know where you got the idea that I was talking about famine in Syria. I'm not. I'm talking about world-wide famine. If the way we feed the world isn't sustainable, then there's going to be a global problem eventually.

Nor am I talking about enforcing population limits.

Bringing all of humanity out of poverty isn't going to do it either, if they all want to have an American diet.

[ntsplnkv2]

I didn't get that idea - I posited that idea. No one is talking about the famine in Syria. If people don't care that people are starving now, they won't care when a few billion more from poor countries are either.

> I'm talking about world-wide famine. If the way we feed the world isn't sustainable, then there's going to be a global problem eventually.

That's not how it works - the world has enough food for current population P + x offspring. Whenever food supply starts to dwindle P+x will go down. Less people will survive at the fringes - the poor will die, much like they do now, hence I brought up Syria, which no one on here talks about, because they don't care.

A worldwide famine would be the result of catastrophic failure. Catastrophic failures you're suggesting will impact any population size regardless of its sustainability. Sustainability is about maintaining resources without depleting them - it's inherently different than catastrophic events destroying most of the system. No amount of sustainable farming matters if, say, a meteor impacts the earth, or global warming renders most land un-farmable. There is no sustainability fix here.

> Bringing all of humanity out of poverty isn't going to do it either, if they all want to have an American diet.

It's the only proven way to reduce birthrate without war and disease.