this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2026
786 points (97.6% liked)
Greentext
8864 readers
334 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not advocating for infinite growth.
But I don't see good arguments that we're overpopulated and need downsizing in the post.
Downsizing will not increase quality of life/solve economic challenges we have. Yes, if we have to, we can "make do" with a wide range of conditions. Why do we have to? Maybe sustainability? Population was half of it's current in 1974 and we were already changing the climate and polluting. Sticking it to those who exploit us, so they'd have fewer people to exploit? Maybe having to (metaphorically) downsize their yachts will be personal tragedies for them, but I don't see it as a huge win.
It took you all day to build a strawman and THAT is what you came up with?
I wish you specified which point you meant.
But yes, all the points in the post look so apparently easily refuted (except for "tightly knit communities", "crime" there is some space for argument there), that I must misunderstand it somehow. It's honestly not intentional.
If it's not too much trouble, please tell me?? I'd like to see compelling version of the argument.