Sounds like shrinking the population would solve the problem, as long as it's a very specific 10% that was shrunk.

This reeks of the “noble savage” stereotype. I would be willing to bet 80% of biodiversity being in native lands has more to do with how brutally they’ve been repressed than how “in tune” with the environment they are.

They’re people too, and I see little reason to believe they wouldn’t fall to the same human flaws as the rest of us if given the chance.

I really dislike equating talking of ”overpopulation” with fascism.

The problem of building sustainable societies is a problem of scale. Inevitably, what a sustainable society looks like will depend on how many people that society has to provide finite resources for without causing too much environmental harm. Assuming we could agree on a lowest acceptable standard of living for everyone and a hard cap on emissions and other environmental harms of resource extraction, any population growth exceeding the rate of efficiency gains in resource extraction and resource utilization/distribution would drive a decline in that acceptable standard. And the reality is that efficiency gains are not guaranteed.

As land is finite, bigger populations by default means higher population density, requires higher extraction efficiency and scaling the average standard of living – allotment of resources and space – in line with keeping environment impact below sustainability thresholds. When using indigenous people as an example, we can note that they are often, conversely, characterized by low population density and low extraction efficiency. Despite low impact living standards, the world would not be able to accommodate a very large population relying on that as a model for sustainability.

The point is not to say that indigenous people living in traditional ways are inferior or less sustainable than people living wastefully in the global north. The point is that population/scale is a huge part in the equation, whether you’re making that point because you’re a fascist who wants to exterminate parts of the population or not.

Obviously, what is a good society with an acceptable living standard for all is hard to agree on. And so is at what point the human population exceeds the world’s capacity. But baring the invention of Star Trek like replicators, inter-planetary expansion or similar technological step-changes for humanity, every ideology infers a point of population overshoot where Earth cannot provide enough resources to offer an acceptable standard of living for its inhabitants.

I distinctly remember being taught in 2002 in upstate New York that humans were outside of the ecosystem and not bound by the same rules and things as animals were. The teacher said that’s what made us so special.

What a fucking crime.

I watched a documentary in New Zealand about fish stocks. It was talking about how the fish around New Zealand are overfished and numbers are low. Had experts talking about issues with boats and how they need no fishing areas. They had Maori on there talking about how much abundance of fish there was before the white people came. They talked about how in tune the Maori were with the land and had ways to manage stock.

The documentary finished saying the issue is still ongoing and not enough has been done. Didn't really go into why.

Well I looked it up after the majority of fishing companies are owned by the Maori and the reason the scientifically justified areas were not set as a sanctuary was because the Maori didnt agree and wanted to do things there own way that would allow them to fish at levels higher than what the science was saying is possible. On this matter New Zealand cared more about what Maori incorrectly believed over what the scientific evidence was saying to them.

People need to get off their high horse. People suck all over the world. Yea shock the people that live in mountains which remain untouched because it is shit farmland is going to have the most nature. But go to other countries and you see it's the same, well worse than white countries. Places like UK has had protected land for hundreds of years. They set up protected land in the new places they went. Areas they left like Malaysia and India are full of rubbish and monoculture. They didn't get better. Go to Indonesia and look at their beautiful islands. The tour guide said to us "look no littering sign. Only in Indonesian. Westerners don't litter but the locals do".

Ecofascism isn't a real ideology I don't know why people keep insisting it is. Almost seems like a deliberate psy-op to create divisions among environmentalists. But more likely people are just stupid and afraid and angry.

Your meme has too many words and the four block structure makes no sense.

Thanks for the good vibes, they'd also love this over on LeftyMemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Although I dont disagree, the argument doesn't make sense. Do you think our worlds population would be the same if we all lived like indigenous people?

I'm tired of people pretending they are smart and problem solving by by mass murdering most humans on the planet and stopping procreation.

You don't solve a jigsaw puzzle by putting 10 pieces together and burning the rest so you dont have to deal with them.

I'm not sure this person is aware what indigenous means. Unless, of course this meme is a 100% America-centric meme and largely ignores the entire rest of the world.

Also pretty funny that "eco fascism" is placed underneath what I assume are native Americans.

Nihilists should lead by example and remove themselves first.