• CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    It’s both fewer people and less consumption.

    No one said legislating neccessarily. We’re doing it now anyways. Most people have the sense that the future won’t be kind to their kids and choose to jave fewer/none.

      • CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        No. I’m saying we don’t need to be heavy handed with reproductive rights because people are making the right choices here. Some policy encouragement would be helpful, but people can be free to choose for themselves.

        We need a lot of policy work on lowering average consumption. Income inequality/poverty, planned obsalescence, right to repair, fossil fuels, food production, building codes and municipal design standards, public transit and electrification, habitat restoration, chemical and pollution regulation etc, all still need a lot of work.

          • CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Getting to true sustainability is increadibly difficult, let alone for the 8-10 billion people on earth. But, if you build a sustainable civilization for 2-4 billion people, it is much easier to achieve, and ypu can return a lot of land back to wilderness to allow the rest of earth’s species to flourish. Its an essential component.

            Ecologists talk about it in terms of I=PAT. Impact = people x affluence x technology. If you cut the number of people, everything becomes easier.