They’re just referring to the fact that the universe we live in is no “finite system” per the meme
Riiight… that’s why we’re the most destructive agent on the planet since the meteor that killed off the dinosaurs - because we “do more with less.” Wtf?
Yes exactly! They’re not saying that’s a good thing but that’s exactly why!
Which societies, Clyde? The ones that capitalism has impoverished so that a small minority can pretend their privileged lives are (somehow) “normal?”
Regardless if the distribution of that wealth is acceptable, growth has made the overall society richer in material wealth. The distribution of that wealth is an entirely different question.
And that’s a good thing, is it? You know we could just achieve that easily by giving women reproductive rights, don’t you? As in… no capitalism required at all?
I’d say destructiveness of humans is kind of a Bell curve shape where the X axis is wealth. Cavemen don’t affect the environment that much mostly because there can’t be that many of them. Their production methods can’t sustain large or dense populations. Then people in 1900 are quite destructive because they can sustain billions of people while spewing pollutants, etc. Then people today are less destructive because we have the wealth to care about such things. Wealthy countries are doing pretty well.
For crying out loud, Clyde… you need a bunch of science nerds to tell you something this obvious? Fine.
Lol, very first sentence in that source:
Three mechanisms influence the fertility decision of educated women: (1) the relatively higher incomes and thus higher income forgone due to childbearing leads them to want fewer children. […]
Because you were replying to this statement by OP:
and as societies get richer in material wealth they produce fewer children and have the luxury to pay attention to things like the environment and their impact on it.
In short your source doesn’t support your claim, but it does story OP’s claim
How deep does one’s head have to be up one’s own arrse to believe that this…
and as societies get richer in material wealth they produce fewer children and have the luxury to pay attention to things like the environment and their impact on it.
They’re just referring to the fact that the universe we live in is no “finite system” per the meme
Yes exactly! They’re not saying that’s a good thing but that’s exactly why!
Regardless if the distribution of that wealth is acceptable, growth has made the overall society richer in material wealth. The distribution of that wealth is an entirely different question.
You have any proof for that statement?
Other person here.
I’d say destructiveness of humans is kind of a Bell curve shape where the X axis is wealth. Cavemen don’t affect the environment that much mostly because there can’t be that many of them. Their production methods can’t sustain large or dense populations. Then people in 1900 are quite destructive because they can sustain billions of people while spewing pollutants, etc. Then people today are less destructive because we have the wealth to care about such things. Wealthy countries are doing pretty well.
They are free to show us the oxygen they harvested from Pluto any time they feel like it.
Your proof for this?
For crying out loud, Clyde… you need a bunch of science nerds to tell you something this obvious? Fine.
Lol, very first sentence in that source:
Three mechanisms influence the fertility decision of educated women: (1) the relatively higher incomes and thus higher income forgone due to childbearing leads them to want fewer children. […]
I swear… it’s moments like these that it really seems like liberal brain-rot is even more debilitating than the fascist variety.
Which part of…
…didin’t you understand the first time around?
Because you were replying to this statement by OP:
In short your source doesn’t support your claim, but it does story OP’s claim
How deep does one’s head have to be up one’s own arrse to believe that this…
…requires capitalism?