Arguments against overpopulation that are demonstrably wrong, part six: "We have a resource distribution problem"
Posted by carnivorous_cactus@reddit | collapse | View on Reddit | 40 comments
Quick preamble: I want to highlight some arguments against overpopulation which I believe are demonstrably wrong. Many of these are common arguments which pop up in virtually every discussion about overpopulation. They are misunderstandings of the subject, or contain errors in reasoning, or both. It feels frustrating to encounter them over and over again.
Part one is here
Part two is here
Part three is here
Part four is here
The argument
The phrase “resource distribution problem”, and variations thereof, are one of the most common objections to overpopulation. Here are some examples from a quick search of the internet:
“Overpopulation arguments ignore the real problem: distribution and consumption of resources. We act like the earth can't support billions - maybe it can't support billionaires.”
“…there’s already more than enough resources. There’s not an overpopulation problem, there’s a resource distribution problem.”
“We have a resource distribution problem, not a population problem.”
“Overpopulation” is a lie—we have a resource distribution problem, not a population problem.”
It’s certainly true that we do have a resource distribution problem. I will not dispute that in this post. However, I will dispute the use of this as a dismissal of overpopulation.
These statements address economic inequality, not environmental sustainability, carrying capacity or ecological overshoot – which are central to overpopulation.
Consider three requirements for the sustainable use of any given resource:
1. There must be enough to satisfy human needs/demands in the short to medium term. In the case of a fish stock, this would be ensuring a person can go fishing and catch what they need to feed themselves.
2. There must be enough to satisfy human needs/demands over the long term. For example, can that person go on fishing at the same rate and catching what they need for food in 10 years’ time? 50 years? 100 years? 500 years? Importantly, this should not deplete the resource over time. For example, if a fisherman has to expend extra effort just to catch the same amount, that indicates the resource is being depleted.
3. There must be enough to satisfy the needs of the ecosystem. For example, are there enough fish leftover for them the fish to fulfil their niche/role in the ecosystem, as prey or predators to other organisms?
In my experience, most people’s understanding of overpopulation is centered around point one above, with little or no consideration given to points two and three. When focusing on point one the resource distribution argument makes perfect sense. But no so points two and three.
Take food waste as an example. The argument goes that humans produce enough food to feed everyone, yet we waste huge amounts. Therefore, if we redistributed this food to where it’s needed, instead of wasting it, then everyone would have enough to eat.
Thought experiment: Let’s pretend someone creates an amazing machine which reduces food waste to zero via redistribution. Now every time a tomato in your fruit bowl is about to go bad, this machine promptly detects it beams it away to be eaten by someone in need. Now everyone has enough to eat and we have addressed point one above.
However, if we assume the tomato was produced using unsustainable practices (a reasonable assumption I think), then points two and three are not addressed. A tomato rotting in the fruit bowl and a tomato beamed away to a person in need both have the same ecological costs. The fossil fuels, land, pesticides, plastic and other inputs still remain.
How a resource is distributed amongst humans does not inherent problems of unsustainability. From a sustainability perspective, a hectare of rainforest destroyed for a billionaire’s golf course is the same as a hectare of rainforest destroyed for subsistence agriculture. 1000 liters of water extracted from a lake for a billionaire’s swimming pool is the same as 1000 liters of water extracted for everyday cooking and cleaning.
Therefore, redistributing resources alone cannot solve the problems associated with ecological overshoot, if that redistribution is simply taking the same unsustainable consumption and distributing the resulting outputs differently between humans.
In fairness, I will highlight some reasonable aspects of the “resource distribution problem” argument.
1. Some forms of resource distribution do improve sustainability. For example, replacing a field of cows with a field of lentils can allow a smaller field to produce the same amount of food. In theory allowing some of the field to “rewild”.
2. Changing overconsuming individuals/groups into more “normal” consumers helps. For example, changing the billionaire with a swimming pool to a normal consumer of water would mean less water is taken from the lake.
3. Our unequal resource distribution is blatantly unfair and addressing this would absolutely be a good thing, even if it doesn’t address sustainability. This post is not seeking to defend or dismiss resource distribution problems, but to highlight that such problems should not be used to dismiss overpopulation.
There seems to be a common belief that removing excessive consumption from the wealthiest and worst over consumers (e.g billionaires) would mean there are plenty of resources for both humans and the environment. I think this view underestimates how far into overshoot humans have become, and how unsustainable practices underpin most of our everyday lives, from food, housing, transport, heating and so on.
ElectromechanicalNut@reddit
Yeah, our current food system is so harmful ecologically that I can’t think of any combination of fixes that would allow us to reverse the harm we’ve caused and produce enough food for everybody without reducing the amount of people that we have to feed.
Our negligence and greed in determining what crops we grow and how we grow them has caused worldwide malnourishment, starvation, and obesity, the degradation of soils and the mass loss of wildlife habitat in every single biome across the planet (massive CO2 sink, btw).
Fixing these problems will require heavily scaling down the farms that produce most of our worldwide calories to reintroduce biodiversity and permaculture principles at basically every level, and that’s going to take a long time.
I’m a horticulturist/conservationist by trade and work with others that have had more ag experience and so think about this stuff literally everyday, and I am fucking terrified of what will happen when the system takes a blow too big. It is so delicate and and to prop it up we actively decide to ruin the environment every day.
Coco_Cannibal@reddit
Every new human added needs food That's roughly 2000m/2 per person.
With roughly 78 million new people added annually, that makes 156.000 km/2 per year .
Forests and grasslands are destroyed, non humans are massacred , displaced in the Billions to feed the millions.
This works until nothing is left to convert, but by then, the ecosystem services (what a very human description of natures working! ) already failed and the artificial system stops working too, since it is dependent on an ecosystem that provides soil, pollinators, water ect.
BTRCguy@reddit
What counts as "overpopulation" can really be boiled down to one question: "If you cannot make fertilizer out of fossil fuels anymore, and do not have a global autocratic government to enforce a particular dietary choice on people, how many people can you feed?"
Because a) it seems unlikely we will have a global autocratic government anytime soon, and b) fossil fuels are a finite and declining resource that will eventually become too scarce/expensive to use for fertilizer production.
So, any amount greater than the answer to the question is overpopulation.
Coco_Cannibal@reddit
The same people that want to force a certain diet on people also claim you can't tell people not to have more kids. What is it guys? Either, or, but this bs is contradictory.
humanspeech@reddit
While this post does make compelling arguments, what literature have you read to reach these conclusions? I am genuinely curious to know the thought process behind your posts because I read everything and everything feels slightly shallow to me without any research to back up your claims.
The examples you use for thought experiments across your posts feel empty and inconclusive and very vague when looking at overpopulation in the context of environmental management.
I am aware that google exists, but google is not going to tell me what articles/books you read to come up with these conclusions. I am writing this in good faith because I want to engage with you in a meaningful way and I feel if I read more I can contribute more to this discussion.
Overpopulation is a very complex subject and I think trying to simplify it into a simple CICO-type equation does it a disservice and makes it very easy to engage in bad faith.
gnostic_savage@reddit
I don't think overpopulation is complex. I also think that the points OP made are very straightforward and don't require an expert opinion or peer reviewed paper. Addressing the failure of distribution or inequality of distribution doesn't address the sustainability of production or the manner of distribution itself. That's as obvious as saying that changing my tire doesn't fix the empty gas tank in my car.
Nor do I think it's a CICO-type equation. It's a sustainability equation. It's a biology and ecology equation, and that is complex. It is so complex that our very best science minds are continually exclaiming that everything is happening faster than expected, and it's all worse than expected, too.
Simple isn't always shallow or easy. A handstand is simple. You put your hands on the floor, you lift your legs into the air, and you hold it. It's only two simple actions, but only a relative few people can do it.
The environment is simple in the way a handstand is. Humans needed to keep their populations and their living habits sustainable in exactly the way OP describes for the sustainability of any resource. And they needed to keep their environmental biodiversity very high and not kill everything that moved because they wanted more resources or thought that particular creature was a "pest". Like a handstand, it was very simple. Like a handstand, too many of us couldn't do it.
Admirable_Advice8831@reddit
It's no more shallow than the objections it's trying to answer, the key term here is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(population)
Kyia-Aikman@reddit
What’s the ideal human population in relation to the threat climate change, resource depletion and wealth inequality pose to us?
NotAllOwled@reddit
What's the ideal human existence from the POV of that population? What elements or equivalent of current standards of living will they need or want or expect - vehicles, power grid, meat consumption, etc.? I'm not sure it's possible to work out how many of us there "should" ideally be without also spending quite a bit of thought on exactly what kind of life we figure we "should" have.
True-Vast-3731@reddit
Why should people expect these things? Who said these things were necessary to have a fulfilling life?
BTRCguy@reddit
The definition of a "fulfilling life" is not yours or mine to make on behalf of someone else.
True-Vast-3731@reddit
Sure but if your definition of a fulfilling life entails the destruction of everything and everyone on the planet just to sustain it, you need to rework your definition.
I can most definitely tell a murderer that he needs to change what makes him get excitement out of life. It's just when that murder is systemic instead of individual, all of a sudden everyone goes "okay 😐"
gnostic_savage@reddit
That's true. But there's a different way to look at it. Humans have very few "real" needs. We need food and water. We need shelter, which includes our clothing. We need community, because we aren't leopards or bears that only come together to procreate, and we don't survive on our own. We need medicine when we are ill or injured. We need to express our creativity, which plenty of people did in the past by building the basic tools and items that fulfilled their real needs.
If a human's true needs are met, and they are "unfulfilled," that's personal problem that should be resolved without consuming shared resources and making it a collective problem for other humans or for other animals.
The belief that my personal fulfillment entitles me to be destructive to the world around me is a flawed and very cultural belief, especially when it is coupled with the idea that my human abilities to rearrange the living planet justify me doing it, regardless of the damage my creative manipulation and emotional neediness inflict on my environment.
But this is all intellectual blah, blah, blah because we've already gone much, much too far with our deluded anthropocentric entitlement. Humans and their animals now account for 95% to 96% of all the mammals alive on the planet, with wildlife accounting for only 4% to 5%. Human poultry now makes up 70% of all the birds alive on the planet. https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass
Along with everything else we've done, it appears that we're simply too "unfulfilled" to survive.
NotAllOwled@reddit
Great questions, though perhaps I should clarify that I made no such assertions (as opposed to asking that very kind of larger question and citing some specific examples to help establish shared relevant definitions).
gnostic_savage@reddit
Thank you for this. I hate the lame argument that we have, or the planet can support, all we need to take care a gazillion billion people. It's nonsense. And why would we want to?
If we're so smart, you would think we would be able to control our population.
J-A-S-08@reddit
Right! If we would all just sleep in vertical 16" diameter tubes and eat only mushroom slop tank gruel and recycle every drop of piss and shit back into ourselves , we could have 100 billion people on the planet! What a life!
gnostic_savage@reddit
Yes! If we only train everyone and get everybody on the same program then we can have everything!
Makes total sense, of course. (oh, my god)
throwawaybrm@reddit
Not quite. Let me FTFY:
Replacing a field used for beef (i.e., growing feed or grazing) with lentils allows you to produce vastly more food - especially protein - on the same land, not just 'the same amount.' This drastically reduces land use for the same level of human nutrition.
Why?
According to Our World in Data & Nemecek & Poore, if the world adopted a global plant-based diet, global agricultural land use could be reduced from ~4.1 billion hectares to ~1 billion hectares - a drop of over 75% (≈ size of Africa), without reducing calories.
This isn’t just about land:
Easing pressure on ecological systems requires not only redistribution - but also a transformation in consumption patterns.
However, as the OP rightly notes, redistributing existing consumption - even if waste-free and perfectly equitable - does not solve ecological overshoot. The core problem is the type of consumption and production: our industrial food system - especially the Green Revolution model and industrial animal agriculture - degrades soils, pollutes waters, and drives biodiversity loss. To achieve sustainability, we need:
But this (of-course) requires restructuring the growth-oriented financial and governance systems that sustain current practices, so ... degrowth.
gnostic_savage@reddit
I'm not sure it's a straight across measurement. Beef and sheep graze on particular types of land, and while it takes far more acres to produce the same amount of protein pound for pound, it also leaves large parcels of land relatively intact that supporte a wide variety of biodiversity, both plant and animal biodiversity, something agricultural farming does not do. Agricultural farming strips lands of biodiversity, removes all or nearly all native plants, and breaks it up with roads for access that large grazing tracts do not do.
And no matter how you measure it, there is ginormous difference in land use and biodiversity loss associated with shopping for our food versus growing it for ourselves. If you were growing your own lentils and everything else, I could never debate the environmental superiority of your choice. But if you are getting in a car or on a bus and traveling to a grocery store where thousands of other people shop, as I do, and purchasing food that has been transported a long distance, that has gone through multiple hands, farm workers, people who package the food, primary and secondary distributors, to be purchased in massive buildings surrounded by parking lots and artificial lighting and powered out the wazoo with electricity, your lentils are as bad in multiple ways as steaks are for the environment.
Don't get me wrong. I've been a vegetarian for decades. I'm just honest about the costs of obtaining our food the way we obtain it, and it's not sustainable even you are a vegan, because it's not just the type of food that is our biggest problem. It's all the resources required for the infrastructure to do it the way we do it.
throwawaybrm@reddit
You raise an important point about infrastructure - and yes, the current industrial food system carries real environmental costs beyond the farm gate (transport, packaging, refrigeration, etc.).
But the data shows those post-farm impacts are relatively small - especially compared to what happens on the farm itself and in land-use change.
As Our World in Data summarizes:
So while air-freighted berries or off-season tomatoes have elevated transport footprints, they’re rare outliers - and even then, their emissions are dwarfed by animal products.
Crucially:
Meanwhile, shifting to plant-rich diets could free up ~3 billion hectares of land globally (75%) - even assuming current supply chains - and restore ecosystems if managed regeneratively (e.g., agroforestry, rewilding, multi-use agroecology).
So yes: we need better logistics and local food sovereignty.
But the data is clear: food choice is still the single largest lever - and diet change remains the most effective single action to reduce environmental pressure.
Btw, I often recommend this 5-minute, evidence-based video, Dairy is Scary! to vegetarians - it unpacks the often-overlooked - and often misunderstood - issues behind dairy production.
gnostic_savage@reddit
I appreciate your reasoned and supported response.
I do disagree with you, however that diet is our the biggest environmental problem. Wealth seeking and anthropocentrism are our biggest problem. Worshiping mammon is our biggest problem. Being deluded about ourselves while also being ignorant of this planet and how it works is our biggest problem. Having no respect for the Earth and the other animals while being enamored of our own "abilities" to manipulate our environment is our biggest problem. Taking much, much more than we need for fun and profit and just self indulgence is our problem.
Millions upon millions of humans had small scale farming and hunting and gathering for thousands of years, and they had beautiful, abundant, healthy environments absolutely full of biodiversity. It worked very, very well.
Our society and culture, on the other hand, has not worked well for centuries upon centuries. Rome had quite bad environmental problems, including polluted water and lands from mining waste, extreme deforestation (Rome was really bad on that score), and extreme fisheries loss from overfishing. Medieval and early modern (1500s) Europe had the same problems, because they were the new manifestation of western civilization. They both also had extreme wealth disparity and widespread poverty in their populations, poverty that has existed and persisted in every part of the world under our control.
It's not just our diets that are the "biggest" environmental problem we have. It's our waste, it's our consumption, our deforestation, our overfishing, our energy "requirements" that have not been limited only to fossil fuels, but have also included wood, coal, and even whale oil, which brought many species of whales to extinction or the brink of it, our convenience, our packaging, our houses, and our wholesale destruction everywhere we have gone to the point that we now face extinction.
In theory I am not against eating meat, if we did it the way indigenous people did it, meeting our real needs and leaving healthy and diverse populations of animals. I choose not to do it, but that's a different issue.
We haven't been sustainable for centuries, and people who think this insane destruction started in the 1960s or even in the 20th century do not have a clue about our real history. More power to them. It's disturbing.
throwawaybrm@reddit
I don’t think we disagree on the deeper problem.
Yes, the root issue is overshoot: extractive economics, wealth accumulation, anthropocentrism, and treating the living world as raw material. I’m not arguing that "diet" is the whole crisis, or that individual food choices magically fix civilization.
But food systems are one of the biggest concrete ways those deeper problems show up: land use, deforestation, methane, manure, fertilizer runoff, water pollution, dead zones, overfishing, and biodiversity loss.
So diet is not the root cause. But it is a major lever.
I’d also be careful with the idea that small-scale farming and hunting/gathering always worked beautifully. Many societies lived far more sustainably than industrial civilization, and many indigenous land-management systems were highly sophisticated. But humans were not automatically ecologically harmless before modernity. Human expansion likely played a major role in many late-Pleistocene megafauna extinctions, when the global human population was tiny compared with today.
That matters because this is a scale problem.
Some hunting, fishing, or animal husbandry may be sustainable at low population densities and low consumption levels. But that does not mean it can scale to 8+ billion people.
So I’m not saying "everyone eating lentils fixes everything." I’m saying that under current population levels and ecological overshoot, plant-based food systems are one of the few ways to reduce pressure at the necessary scale.
Eating animals "the old way" may be possible for small populations in particular ecosystems. It is not a viable universal model for humanity now.
gnostic_savage@reddit
I hope you will look far more carefully at the human-caused megafauna extinction theory. In my opinion, it is extremely flawed. It is also apologism for western destructiveness. The intent is to say, "See, we're not so bad. Everyone is the same!"
I certainly agree with you that humans have not been ecologically harmless, but . . . and this is big, so what? I'm not being snide. Yes, they made mistakes. Sometimes. And sometimes, like the Maori and the Moa, they really blew it.
They were not idyllic, not heavenly perfection and completely lacking in errors. But overall, and very many of them, especially in the western hemisphere, and in Australia (for at least 80,000 years, and as long as 120,000 years according to some scholars), and elsewhere, many people were wonderfully sustainable.
Isn't that what matters? Not that they were some level of perfection that no humans have ever attained anywhere, but that they as well as humans have ever done and they were sustainable and could have remained so for thousands of years?
That's what matters to me.
I'm not aware that there is viable model for humanity now.
throwawaybrm@reddit
I don’t disagree that many Indigenous societies were far more sustainable than industrial civilization, and I’m not using megafauna extinctions to flatten all humans into "everyone is the same."
But that’s not really the point here. The issue is today’s scale: 8 billion people, industrial animal agriculture, deforestation, habitat loss, and biodiversity collapse. Whatever one thinks about prehistoric extinctions, current animal-heavy diets are not scalable or ecologically harmless. So the relevant question is not whether some past societies lived sustainably. It’s whether our current food system does. And it clearly doesn’t.
gnostic_savage@reddit
I can't see that anything we do is sustainable. I already said that in too many words. Our wealth seeking has never been sustainable, and it's never been moral, either.
It's not just industrial civilization that hasn't been sustainable. Western civilization hasn't been sustainable for centuries. If you don't know that it's only because you are not familiar with its history of environmental problems. They were extreme. It's also why we have plundered the rest of the world for the past 400 to 500 years.
Here are some links on the colonized lands of the big three colonial powers, France, Great Britain and Spain. They are not all the western colonial powers, however. Holland was in there in a few places, famously in Indonesia, as was Portugal. We've been profiting from and living off the resources of other people and their lands for the past 400 to 500 years.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Asynchronous_map_of_the_British_Empire.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_French_colonial_empire
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spanish_Empire_at_its_greatest_Extent_1783.png
https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/colonial-presence-africa
throwawaybrm@reddit
I agree that Western colonialism and industrial civilization have been brutally extractive. But this feels like a derail from the actual point.
We were talking about whether animal-heavy diets and animal agriculture are sustainable or ethical today. Pointing out that Western civilization has also been unsustainable for centuries doesn’t answer that - it just broadens the indictment.
If anything, it supports my point: animal agriculture is part of the same extractive pattern, treating land, ecosystems, and animals as resources to be used. So unless the argument is that animal-heavy diets are somehow sustainable at today’s scale, I don’t see how this responds to what I said.
gnostic_savage@reddit
Actually, we're talking about whether the current over-population can be sustained by fixing the "distribution" problem so as to feed so many people.
The original conversation was not about ethics, but I understand that it's an important point to you. I stand by my first point that our distribution system is not sustainable whether we are distributing meat or beans.
The infrastructure required for all of it, the ports, the roads, the traffic control, the vehicles including farm equipment, ships and planes, the distribution centers, the power, the management and maintenance of it, none of it is sustainable.
A much, much smaller global population could live that way a short amount of time, but not indefinitely. In a relatively short period of time, considering the length of human existence, even a small fraction of today's global population would run out of planet using the resources we use. We have done exactly that in little more than a century, ourselves. In the year 1900 there were only 1,600,000,000 people on the planet. People who think we were sustainable in 1900 are wrong. Rachel Carson published Silent Spring in 1962. Entire rivers were on fire from pollution, and parts of the Great Lakes were too toxic for humans to even step foot in; they had huge dead zones. The EPA wasn't established because we were being cautious or forward thinking; we had huge environmental problems in the 1950s and 1960, even with that low level of technology and far lower global populations.
The math and the facts don't support that humans can live this way at all.
whereismysideoffun@reddit
People commonly are making comments about this topic without understanding ecology or farming. I grew up hunting, fishing, and worked on small farms. I went vegan at 19. Oddly, vegans talking about how if we didn't feed animals grains/legumes it would be food for us was part of me having a deeper realization about food, ecology and the effects of being vegan. Grain and legume ag was covering every bit of flat ground that didn't flood. The entire area had been deforested for farming. My dad pointed at fields that were his favorite morel spots or pecan spots when it was still forest. Those places are now like a desert as they are monocrops with no habitat and are devoid of life outside the corn/soy season.
People arguing that we have enough for a vegan world were unknowingly advocating for that destructive way of farming food. I wasnt ok with that farming if it was for food for animals for us to eat or whether it's food for us. The only land intact that didn't annually get flooded out by the river was rough or hilly ground which had animals grazing. It supported so much life still.
I'm not vegan now. I moved. I raise animals on pasture that is seeded with native prairie and savanna. Interspersed with the pasture is fruit and nut orchard. All of which don't need the best quality land to thrive. It is increasing biodiversity. Between that, foraging, and commercial fishing, I can redundantly get all my own food without leaving my county!
gnostic_savage@reddit
Thank you. That is my perception of the effects of commercial farming. I also think that people who discuss the limitations of fuel or electricity required for our distribution system miss a lot about the entirety of all our infrastructure, the paved roads, the mining required for the vehicles and other products, the refrigeration, and the lighting power, and the city and state and federal management needed to keep it all going, not to mention the profit margin at every step. It is so massive.
Every form of life on this planet evolved to walk (or fly, or swim or crawl) outside every day either hunt or forage for its food in its immediate environment. Everything, from tiny insects to reptiles to birds and mammals, including humans. Anything beyond that, minimally beyond that, could have been sustainable with a small human population. Otherwise, doing things that way had to bring about a collapse eventually. In our case it didn't take very long.
psychosisnaut@reddit
These arguments always come from people who have no connection to agriculture. You don't graze sheep in a corn field, you do it on land that is otherwise unsuitable for agriculture ie Welsh valleys
throwawaybrm@reddit
"Unsuitable for corn" doesn’t mean "ecologically best used for sheep." A lot of those hillsides weren’t always bare grass - they’ve been shaped by centuries of deforestation and grazing. Not every piece of land has to be monetized; it could be woodland, scrub, peatland, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, or restored ecosystem.
And sheep aren’t necessarily crop-free either. Many systems use hay, silage, winter forage crops, cereals, or other supplemental feed, especially in winter or when finishing lambs. So "they graze marginal land" is a partial truth being stretched into a defense of the whole system.
omgwtfm8@reddit
more 3c0 f45c1m in this sub. What a surprise
carnivorous_cactus@reddit (OP)
Please enlighten me. How specifically is this post ecofascism?
omgwtfm8@reddit
Maltusianslop is 3c0f45c15maxxing
There_Are_No_Gods@reddit
My take is that the key logical failure in the "resource distribution is the problem - not lack of resources" claims relates more to the terrible assumption that worldwide perfect immediate waste free distribution is remotely plausible.
We are talking about massive, worldwide systems, of staggering complexity and distances. There are already a lot of incentives towards optimizing that for minimal losses. Systems at that scale just inherently have a lot of losses. You can avoid some, and mitigate others, but you'll never get it down much farther than we already have.
In other words, yes there's waste, but that waste is mostly unavoidable at this scale.
It's also not really just pure "waste", in the sense that those organics are often cycled back through natural systems, such as turned into compost.
gnostic_savage@reddit
Thank you. I made the same point before I read your comment. All that distribution is a huge environmental problem that is as bad as any environmental problem.
Comfortably-Numb2026@reddit
What is an “argument against overpopulation?”
I think you mean “arguments that dispute overpopulation is a problem”
You’re refuting the refuting, so to speak.
In the end, I understood your point. But the title is a bit confusing.
Jack_Flanders@reddit
[missing word]
Well-written post!
StatementBot@reddit
This thread addresses overpopulation, a fraught but important issue that attracts disruption and rule violations. In light of this we have lower tolerance for the following offenses:
Racism and other forms of essentialism targeted at particular identity groups people are born into.
Bad faith attacks insisting that to notice and name overpopulation of the human enterprise generally is inherently racist or fascist.
Instructing other users to harm themselves. We have reached consensus that a permaban for the first offense is an appropriate response to this, as mentioned in the sidebar.
This is an abbreviated summary of the mod team's statement on overpopulation, view the full statement available in the wiki.
Fun_Journalist4199@reddit
This is a well written and reasoned argument. I’m gonna go read your other posts in the series