The Finnish bird has spoken.
:D
In my home town we used to have lots of beautiful forests, and then people bred and there was a need for new homes so they just cut down many of the trees. I think it was bad of them to cut down the trees and ruin the forests. But most environmentalists would have said "They should have just build a huge skyscraper that could house all those people!" instead of "If there weren't so many people we wouldn't need so many houses. Or the "animals have lost their living areas" problem. Modern environmentalists will come, say "Stop cutting down the trees!" and walk away as if that solved all the problems. Oldschool enviromentalists would have said "We would have never had this problem if people didn't breed so much!".
I respect old school enviros, because they had the brains to think "Why do people feel that they need to cut down trees? How did we arrive in this situation? What would need to happen so people didn't feel the need to cut down the trees?".
The people aren't cutting down the trees for fun! Yes, I hate it when people destroy forests, but yes, I hate forcing people to live in crowded apartment buildings even more!
I wish we had only a 100 million people in the world. Then we could have much bigger forests etc., more living areas for animals, and more space for humans too! I love the nature, animals, forests, lakes, rivers etc. I wish everyone could live next to a forest! Forests are absolutely important for both physical and mental health, they are important for animals too. If I could choose, every country would be 70% forest/lakes/wilderness/swamps/animal area, 30% "human area", but there are so many people it's impossible.
Sigh.
If there were less people, we could support both the nature and the people! I'd love it if there were more forests, animals, BIRDS, plants etc.! Now we have to choose between the nature and the people. When I was an idealistic kid I always chose the environment, but now that I'm an adult who needs to pay for car, gasoline, clothes, food etc. I'd choose cheaper living costs over environment, I'm really sorry to say.
Less people: more living areas for animals and plants
Less people: more living areas for humans
Less people: more resources for the rest of us
Less people: smaller imprint on the planet
Antinatalism benefits both the nature and humans, modern environmentalism hurts people, and doesn't really help the nature much because the human population will grow larger.
I remember when I lived in my first apartment, and we got notes from the landlord to stop showering for more than 5 minutes a day so we could save the planet. Finland is the country with the most lakes in the whole world but only 5,5 million people, if 50 Finns stopped showering it wouldn't save anything, we have enough clean water to take five long showers a day if we want. Meanwhile we would be called racists if we went to India and said "Your holy river wouldn't be so dirty if you didn't have one billion people all bathing in the same river!" or if we went to New York and said "Your rent would be ten times lower if you had a hundred times less people!".
Sorry, I'm feeling sick and braingfoggish so I'm unable to write coherently.
