How do you account for buildings decaying with time?
Let’s look at shorter term too while we’re at it.
Luckily, we don’t have to speculate - in Japan a lot of towns depopulate, locally due to people moving to big cities, as well as generally due to population decline.
They have increased bear attacks, car brigdes use of which is banned because they are old, but municipalities don’t even have money to demolish them, healthcare less available
We’ll make do. We’re very good at making do. Might even say the best at making do.
If our civilization is propped up on the next generation supplying us with an ever increasing population for the meat grinder, what we have is actually a planet wide ponzi scheme. We would do well to make do with less.
But I don’t see good arguments that we’re overpopulated and need downsizing in the post.
Downsizing will not increase quality of life/solve economic challenges we have. Yes, if we have to, we can “make do” with a wide range of conditions. Why do we have to?
Maybe sustainability? Population was half of it’s current in 1974 and we were already changing the climate and polluting.
Sticking it to those who exploit us, so they’d have fewer people to exploit? Maybe having to (metaphorically) downsize their yachts will be personal tragedies for them, but I don’t see it as a huge win.
But yes, all the points in the post look so apparently easily refuted (except for “tightly knit communities”, “crime” there is some space for argument there), that I must misunderstand it somehow. It’s honestly not intentional.
If it’s not too much trouble, please tell me?? I’d like to see compelling version of the argument.
How do you account for buildings decaying with time? Let’s look at shorter term too while we’re at it. Luckily, we don’t have to speculate - in Japan a lot of towns depopulate, locally due to people moving to big cities, as well as generally due to population decline. They have increased bear attacks, car brigdes use of which is banned because they are old, but municipalities don’t even have money to demolish them, healthcare less available
We’ll make do. We’re very good at making do. Might even say the best at making do.
If our civilization is propped up on the next generation supplying us with an ever increasing population for the meat grinder, what we have is actually a planet wide ponzi scheme. We would do well to make do with less.
I’m not advocating for infinite growth.
But I don’t see good arguments that we’re overpopulated and need downsizing in the post.
Downsizing will not increase quality of life/solve economic challenges we have. Yes, if we have to, we can “make do” with a wide range of conditions. Why do we have to? Maybe sustainability? Population was half of it’s current in 1974 and we were already changing the climate and polluting. Sticking it to those who exploit us, so they’d have fewer people to exploit? Maybe having to (metaphorically) downsize their yachts will be personal tragedies for them, but I don’t see it as a huge win.
It took you all day to build a strawman and THAT is what you came up with?
I wish you specified which point you meant.
But yes, all the points in the post look so apparently easily refuted (except for “tightly knit communities”, “crime” there is some space for argument there), that I must misunderstand it somehow. It’s honestly not intentional.
If it’s not too much trouble, please tell me?? I’d like to see compelling version of the argument.