#overpopulation

I've discussed this before, but the issue with limited resources isn't that we have too many people overall, but that certain people use way more of the resources than others. "overpopulation" fears tend to be directed at countries with large populations like india and china, but per capita, those people use very few resources. americans use much, much more resources (not just per capita, but overall) despite having a fraction of the population that other countries have. not just “undeveloped” countries; americans use twice as much energy per capita as the british despite both countries having high standards of living. what this tells us is that the number of people doesn't matter so much as the distribution does. it's blaming poor nonwhite people for a crisis that a tiny percentage of people are actually responsible for.

fears of "low birth rates," on the other hand, are never actually about low birth rates in general, because overall there isn't a drop in birth rate: the global population continues to grow, not shrink. it's about too few of the "right" kind of people being born: white people (if you’re a white nationalist), Christians (if you’re a Christian nationalist), intelligent people (if you buy into Idiocracy-style eugenics), etc.

I would further argue that the fear of low birth rates from a practical/economical standpoint ("who will care for our aging population?" "what happens if there are more people drawing from social security than are contributing?" etc., etc.) is falling victim to the classic blunder of assuming that the 1950s were normal and how things had always been, and not the convergence of a bunch of different factors that are unlikely to be repeated. the baby boom was not normal. we are never going to have enough people to replace every boomer unless we get them from other countries through immigration.

Jason Hickel

I began by replying, "Let's say you're right-the world is overpopulated."

Now, pro-life advocates who think the world is not overpopulated may be tempted to argue the point. I don't recommend immediately doing that. After all, you have enough to argue about without bringing up another topic of disagreement. But don't say you agree with the person on overpopulation (or anything else) if you actually don't agree with him. Instead, agree for the sake of the argument.

You can say something like, "I personally don't think the world is overpopulated. But for the sake of the argument, let's say I'm wrong." Or you could agree on some common ground between the two positions, like, "Some parts of the world are crowded, and people there may lack the basic necessities of life."

Once you've established common ground, you can then apply the pro-choice reasoning to a born person. Of course, you can always use the standard "Imagine I have a two-year-old here," but once you've practiced using Trot Out a Toddler enough, you can substitute other born human beings for the apply.

For example, I asked Victor if we should just kill the elderly and disabled people who no longer contribute to society, since some unborn children might grow up to become scientists who solve overpopulation issues. He smiled and said, "You can't do that, because ..." As his voice trailed off, I replied, "Because we shouldn't kill human beings just to ease overpopulation. If a baby in the womb is as human as you or me, doesn't he deserve the same protection you and I receive?"

-Trent Horn, Persuasive Pro-Life

—

+Pregnant and need help? Click here.