As bloodthirsty capitalism pulls more and more people out of poverty we discover that putting a steak on everyone's table and a fresh car in everyone's garage is too taxing on the atmosphere, wildlife, forests and what not.
We seem to have to choose between a smaller luxurious population and billions and billions of people living in pods eating synthetic food.
This point of view comes up a lot in connection with climate change, and I always find it incredibly offensive. My dad was reminiscing the other day about his happy childhood growing up in a village in Bangladesh in the 1950s. This was back when 1 in 3 kids didn’t live to the age of 5.
Even an RCP 8.5 scenario isn’t going to turn the developed world into Bangladesh circus 1950. Hell it won’t turn Bangladesh into Bangladesh in 1950. People will still have a standard of living that makes life incredibly worthwhile, because we as human beings were designed to need little to find life worthwhile.
That’s not an argument against investing in renewables or whatever. But the Malthusian arguments about climate change are quite misanthropic. Trump got in trouble for calling places “shithole countries.” But nobody blinks and eye when someone casually implies that people in those countries would have been better off never having been born.
Recent history shows that there's no holding previously backwards countries from advancing their consumption. As Russians joke, the global famine will come when the Chinese start using forks.
China, India and SE Asia are quickly upping their per-capita production and consumption of carbon-heavy goods. Brazil doesn't destroy Amazon out of spite.
We have no moral right to say "Nonono, you can't do what we did in the 20th century and live like us!".
Yes, we do. Now that we know what the effects of climate change could be. That being said, we do have a moral duty to help out. Populations tend to grow slower when they become "more advanced", so it might not be the end of the world.
I currently live in Bangladesh. And my father made a off-handed comment few days ago about how there isn't many "thin" people in our village anymore. When he grew up in 60s, a big chunk of our village people didn't have two meals regularly, people dying of hunger wasn't so uncommon. Just two days ago a doctor friend told me hundreds of people die in his hospital every week due to lack of proper equipment. I have several times witnessed the heartbreaking scene in pharmacies where people ask for the price of a medicine, and then turn away without buying anything after hearing the price.
Overpopulation at least partly contributes to this, if not the biggest contributor. It may not be a global problem, but it definitely is a problem for a country like Bangladesh (and maybe India too). I'm not saying this people's life is worthless, but I would definitely not want a new generation of people to go through this.
Population control here is not just the pragmatic and necessary option, it's also the most humane thing to do.
My point isn’t in disagreement with yours. Of course being poor is worse than being richer. My point is that even in Bangladesh, the level of prosperity is sufficient to exceed the threshold for humans to find life “worthwhile.”
The problem is the constant expansion (which comes with warfare and extreme waste) that capitalism mandates.
China doesn’t extract profits through the export of capital at usury rates from other countries at gunpoint, though. It is not imperialist.
Most CPC members are working class, especially in the leadership. They’re almost 10% of the population, of course they’d be a typical sample.
China offers loans for development with mutual gain, not extraction of profits. Even just comparing interest rates to the IMF is telling, let alone the many loans forgiven. Talk to some Africans affected by the Belt and Road Initiative, they’re overwhelmingly in favour.