- cross-posted to:
- economy
- cross-posted to:
- economy
Switzerland will hold a referendum on Sunday on whether to cap its population at 10 million people.
If the measure is passed, Swiss officials will have to roll out measures to curb population growth until 2050.
Businesses have warned that limiting immigration will weigh on Switzerland’s growth and competitiveness.
I guess at some point a high population does become unsustainable. 10 million sounds arbitrary though.
The people suggesting that dont do that to be sustainable, but because they don’t want to share with others. To be sustainable they could limit meat consumption, travel less, buy less Bs from temu but this would be inconvenient for them, so it doesn’t happen. It’s only the others who must give up something, but not them.
Now where have I seen that before…
And then you immediately take that idea as established fact?
I mean, but we clearly don’t need more people so…
That’s such a dumb take. Having fewer people is a valid way to be sustainable.
Of course that’s not the goal of whoever is pushing this. But the idea that we should all go shit in the woods so the earth could sustain 15 billion humans is so ridiculous it sounds like a psyop to make ecology appears more like a sect than a matter of survival
Population control is “valid” in that it works I guess? But then so does mass genocide. Fewer people = less pollution. Doesn’t mean we should do it.
We can reduce the vast majority of our footprint by doing exactly what he said: less animal products, less driving, less low quality consumerist bullshit purchased. You summarising it as “shitting in the woods” is just disingenuous bollocks. People can and should lead more sustainable lives.
At the smallest notion of someone challenging your beliefs you just jump straight towards genocide. Hilarious.
Have you heard of “comparisons”?
Like, apples and oranges are both round, and fruits. Yet people say that comparing the 2 is “like comparing apples and oranges”.
Are you upset at the idea of comparisons? Or do you just want to avoid the other points I’m making?
It’s a terrible comparison that poisons a fruitful debate for no reason at all. You’re comparing a fair point to genocide, making it an indefensible position and grinds any discussion to a halt.
Does comparing an apple to an orange change the way that apples taste?
Can you reply to my actual point at some stage?