Reduction of population (Bevölkerungsreduktion)

[matrixmann]

A little fallacy which gets linked popularly to fascism because it's about everyone's personal reproduction in this: The Nazis never were against population growth and the increase of mankind's numbers itself, they "only" had a problem with proliferation of certain sorts of people. They didn't kill to "create more space for the rest of us which already exists", but for replacing those unwanted sort of humans with people of those kinds which they deemed desireable in their worldview. And that should happen manyfold if possible at best.
So birth control and prohibiting people to have children because the human world population has to shrink in regard to the environmental burden that takes place doesn't have anything to do with fascism in any form.
It's a brutal and uncomfortable truth that even the beloved planned children of the Westerners are also going to contribute their share to polluting the earth and therefore the gesture of "a biological child to coronate one's personal egoism" better gets relinquished.

---

Ein kleiner Irrtum, der gern mit Faschismus verbunden wird, weil es dabei um jedes einzelnen persönliche Vermehrung geht: Die Nazis waren nicht gegen Bevölkerungswachstum und das Wachsen der Menschheit an sich, sie hatten “lediglich” etwas gegen die Vermehrung von bestimmten Sorten von Menschen. Sie töteten sie nicht um für “mehr Platz für den Rest von uns, der schon hier ist” zu schaffen, sondern um diese in ihren Augen unliebsamen und minderwertigen Menschen mit welchen von ihrer Sorte zu ersetzen. Und das sollte, nach Möglichkeit, äußerst zahlreich geschehen.
Geburtenkontrolle und Menschen zu verbieten, Kinder zu kriegen, weil die Weltbevölkerung bei der stattfindenden Umweltbelastung langfristig schrumpfen muss, hat also nichts mit irgendeiner Form von Faschismus zu tun. Es ist eine brutale und unangenehme Wahrheit, dass auch die geliebten Wunschkinder der aktuellen Westler dazu beitragen werden, die Erde weiterhin zu verseuchen, und daher auf die Geste “ein leibliches Kind als Krönung des persönlichen Egoismus” besser verzichtet werden sollte.

Comments

[jora0.livejournal.com]

In any case, if somebody wants to reduce the number of people fast enough, it has to kill them, and a big war is a very convinient option.

An alternative (not to reducing of population via planning --- but to FAST reducing of population via wars, destroy of medicine and implementation of holocaust-like methods) could be more rational using of resources, without wasting too much for producing of waste to cell and get money. But it seems to be incompartible with current capitalistic paradigm based on competition for profit.

[matrixmann]

Of course, war leads to fast success.

Personally, I'd prefer a solution starting before it's the eleventh hour, so you can keep the losses for everybody at a minimum, and so you can avoid Holocaust-methods, which, in the end, not lead to a reduction of the population, but to an erasement of certain people and the gap gets refilled again with other people twice as much as before.

It's something that wouldn't work together with the current economic system, whose only obsessive goal is growth.
On the other hand, I must say, it is a big challenge to human mind to think about regulation of masses to exist of its own species. Thousands of years of religion taught mankind "the earth only belongs to you", and after Holocaust this is a very sensitive topic also on the left side of politics (Western left as well as other editions of "left").
The jump to the conclusion you want gas chambers again is stuck to your heels, even though it doesn't have to do with that.
That is because it's a very common subtle attitude that humans get taught since the very first days of their existence to not question the behavior of their own species inside the big ecosystem called "earth". Humans get raised inside the filter bubble that they're totally unattached to that and therefore don't need to bow down to nature's laws. That they can do whatever they want inside their human universe.
But this isn't the truth, as one can see through the extinction of masses of animal species throughout human history caused by man.
Where humans live, no animals live anymore - except for those which they breed themselves for a certain purpose.
This aspect should get a very deep consideration, and there man should also look into the abyss that it is itself.
There is no "we spread as we like". It has physical limits.

In this point, even the left political forces from differing areas of the world fight against accepting this recognition.

[jora0.livejournal.com]

Yes, left political forces prefer to ignore the problem of overpopulations , and don't propose any approach towards solution of this problem, whereas rights have some well-known solutions (not necessary proper but evident), and even if they keep silence about it, people know that rights have a solution.

[matrixmann]

The thing I keep finding the most emphasis on is "this world can feed all these people".
Well... This may be correct if things aren't run that ineffectively as they're now, if most foods don't get transported over to Europe or North America just because over there's the biggest profit to make.
But, the question I keep putting to myself in this is: What about all other life except for humans?
Never got to hear a plausible answer to this.
And that's what I figure nobody has an idea about because the big ideologies who circulate around the well-being of all humans only care about the problems and the well-being of these.
All other life, they didn't rack their brains about previously inside that filter bubble.

Saying, there is a difference between a felt overpopulation problem that humans keep coming back to every few decades or hundred years and which they answer with killing each other - and there is, meanwhile, also a factual problem of human overpopulation on the planet. Which has nothing to do with "the right" or "the wrong" kind of humans being alive and sucking up too many resources in one place and eating up all other humans' wealth (what most people associate if you put the topic on the table).

I don't know how describe this... It's like even the left is deeply afraid of admitting they're slave of this anthropocentric worldview, or like they're afraid of catching a bad public image just because by making parts of the right rheotorics "theirs". Even if it is for a different reason than these have them.

[jora0.livejournal.com]

The problem of other life forms really exists, and it is hard for humans to change this antropocentric view to something more balanced. Humans first think about themselves, and only then about somebody else (and the more dangerous the future seems to be, the less care take average human about another life forms).

Similar situation we can see with sympathy/antypathy to refugees: while social insecurity and vulnerability grow, less people have sympathy, and more people have antypathy to them.

[matrixmann]

Yeah, this is true.
And when they get to move to better times, then they simply forget racking their brains about this topic, like there's decades of time left to do that still.
The sweet drunkenness that comfortableness resulting from wealth creates...