The only thing, that appears hard to grasp is the already declining birth rate for africa since quite some time (go google it). It would be much more effective for fascists to argue for a higher mortality rate but that would be too cruel for the main stream.
To end constructively: What we need is better wealth distribution for even better health care to accelerate this process. You need to understand that better living standards helps us platoe. Maybe advocate for that.
> The only way to have fewer humans without murdering or starving a bunch is for population to level and drop off naturally.
Our planet could easily support +10 billion people. Its also a matter of wealth distibution. You know that "4 planets consumption rate" stuff for US citizens? This turns the responsibitly from the fertile poor to the rich consumers without any social darwinism. I would say, only focusing on the poor and not the rich to hinder wealth distribution justifies the insult of an eco-fascist.
The problem here is, that right-wingers stop their train of thought at "too much people" and "look at birth rate" ("another thought process finished successfully"), which your comment was all about, but ignore their own role in defining that upper bound and their consumption. It is comfortably to their way of life arguing against fertility rates, which wont effect them as much as wealth distribution would do to actually lower it.
You could also cut the poor from resources which would revert the demograpgic transition into high death and ferrility rates. Also a solution...
Stage 2-3:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
The only thing, that appears hard to grasp is the already declining birth rate for africa since quite some time (go google it). It would be much more effective for fascists to argue for a higher mortality rate but that would be too cruel for the main stream.
To end constructively: What we need is better wealth distribution for even better health care to accelerate this process. You need to understand that better living standards helps us platoe. Maybe advocate for that.
> The only way to have fewer humans without murdering or starving a bunch is for population to level and drop off naturally.
Our planet could easily support +10 billion people. Its also a matter of wealth distibution. You know that "4 planets consumption rate" stuff for US citizens? This turns the responsibitly from the fertile poor to the rich consumers without any social darwinism. I would say, only focusing on the poor and not the rich to hinder wealth distribution justifies the insult of an eco-fascist.
The problem here is, that right-wingers stop their train of thought at "too much people" and "look at birth rate" ("another thought process finished successfully"), which your comment was all about, but ignore their own role in defining that upper bound and their consumption. It is comfortably to their way of life arguing against fertility rates, which wont effect them as much as wealth distribution would do to actually lower it.
You could also cut the poor from resources which would revert the demograpgic transition into high death and ferrility rates. Also a solution...