this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
123 points (94.9% liked)

SneerClub

983 readers
23 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The highlight for me is coming up with some weird pseudoscience justification for why it’s okay to hit your kids.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

There are already way, way too many people on the planet.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

nah. there are too many billionaires though.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Two things can be true at once

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

yes. but “there are too many people” is just a tired white supremacist trope; there are not too many people out there. (the “non-white” is usually silent in these statements. this is also how some people can be both pro- and antinatalist.)

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

@fuckingkangaroos @sneerclub Not because the planet cannot carry 8 billion humans, but because no known humane socioeconomic system can provably do so. That problem is exacerbated by the fact that all evidence suggests that the best first step towards a solution would be to lose the richest billion, not the poorest, and absolutely not the folks actually doing the hard work involved in directly feeding and caring for their fellow humans.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

@fuckingkangaroos @sneerclub The TESCREAL (I prefer “STREACLE” but that ship has sailed) worldview implies a future with far fewer actual humans on Earth, something also foreseen as necessary for a widespread sustainable high standard of living by people who don’t share their essentially fascist views. We should not get there by having any set of “elites” self-select their own survival. The inevitability of an outcome does not justify any arbitrary path to that end.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

@fuckingkangaroos @sneerclub I’m just glad that I’m old enough that I likely won’t have to watch the process by which we get to a smaller and more sustainable human population. I fear that what we’ll actually get is the first movers towards a smaller (and on average better-off) human species are those who salivate at the prospect of slaughtering “undesirables” for the good of the race. Those of us who just want to tax the rich to build better lives for all will lose.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I suspect quite a few of them are going to be unalived in the next 30 years, given the way things are going politically in various countries.

Could be many millions, especially if Modi's India gets really bad and it overflows into Pakistan.

Still not enough to make much of a dent in the total world population though.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Nah, to do that you need widespread ecological collapse, famine, lack of clean drinking water, and ideally a really good infectious disease.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

@gerikson I have some news…