oiseautempete wrote:... The only possible correction is the global limitation of the birth rate to bring the world population in the medium term to an acceptable level compatible with a global and "reasonable" modern life (not the American "model"!), And unfortunately it would go through an authoritarian regulation (see china), see eugenics (prohibition of reproduction for people with serious genetic deficits), to compensate for the disappearance of natural selection in humans ... I can all the more evoke that I apply it to myself ...
The sensitive point is touched, the one that environmentalism does not want to talk about. The planet can effectively absorb the waste of men without them having much to force themselves, but up to a certain level of population only, which today seems to be exceeded. The problem is therefore simplified by:
- either the population continues to grow, and this is at the cost of the reduction of freedom and individual aspirations, ultimately it is the art of possibly ecological canning of sardines
- either the population regulates itself in one way or another, and then the "imprint" will also self-regulate without having to make people feel guilty as the ecologists do today, as if the impact on the planet was not the indirect consequence of everyone's concern, perfectly legitimate, to improve their lot and that of their fellow human beings (I can elaborate on this if necessary).
They will say to me: "ah but no, it is not that, it is that only a minority of the population on earth monopolizes a majority of resources". That's right, but isn't this the population that lives the best? And isn't it the wish of those whose "footprint" is small, to have a larger one while enjoying the same advantages as the first? Do you know a lot of lottery winners who wouldn't want to swap their HLM for a bigger house? The direction of migratory flows clearly shows us where it is best to live, this is where the footprint is the largest.
Offering as much with less footprint is the only way that can lead to buy-in. This solution is technical and ecology can help. To give up the advantages of his current way of life, I am not against, it can also be a solution, ideological that one, still it would be necessary to show us a better one, of way of life, and if possible, by example, the one we would like to follow. There is no plethora.