this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
468 points (96.1% liked)

Technology

58993 readers
7805 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Most problems would simply not be a problem if we drastically reduce the human population. Which would not only avoid the issues caused by climate change but also would prevent further increases in pollution and CO2 emissions.

I don't know why the best solution is often the less talked about. Just stop having so many children. We don't have 70% infant mortality rate like we used to, there's no need to have 4 kids to preserve your legacy.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 days ago (2 children)

if we drastically reduce the human population. Which would not only avoid the issues caused by climate change but also would prevent further increases in pollution and CO2 emissions.

Ignoring the genocide-apologist trend, the pandemic did wonders to reduce global warming.., perhaps start taxing more the companies that force back-to-office when they could clearly keep most of their work force at home?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And, eliminate Euclidean zoning in the U.S., so that people can live near where they work, or work near where they live. (Not all of us can do it, or like working from home.)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Yup, mixed zoning would do wonders. Why we don't do that is beyond me...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

What genocide? Just sensible reproduction. There's two options. 10 billion people living miserably like during the pandemic. Or maybe 1 billion people being able to live good lives.

[–] ivanafterall 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

What about 2 billion people living pretty-good lives or 9 billion people living less-miserably? That's at least two more options right there.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There are infinite options we start doing fractions! (Please don't)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

We can completely solve it with 10 billion 1/2 people

[–] petersr 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] carl_dungeon 14 points 2 days ago

I’m pretty sure he said have less children, not start death camps.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I literally said just having less children.

And I'm totally ok to only having between one or zero children myself.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

China tried it, didn't go too well... good luck trying it on a global scale...

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago

Chinas problem was also a still very uneducated and traditionalist populace, that insisted on having boys as heirs. Leading to abortions or straight up murder of female infants. That wouldn't really be a global issue I beleive

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Derived problems were product of a sexist society should be avoidable, you know, ending sexism...

Or are you supporting that people should be able to want male babies over female ones?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Oooooh, of course, how could i forget? Blame the cis white male and the patriarchy, or course!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

Literally the only big problem with china one-child policy, was that sexist parents were practicing selective abortions to ensure that they get one male kid.

No sexism = no problem

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

One difficulty with that is that the way we organize economies currently depends on having a working-age population that is large enough to support the non-working population. When you have far fewer workers than retired people you start having problems. I don't know what the answer to that is, but it's another instance of how any plan to seriously address climate change tends to require deep changes to how we run society. The current systems can't simply be tweaked to make the problem go away.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago

There is a lot of things wrong on how we organize the economy.

If we are going to change that we may as well change it good.

[–] acchariya 6 points 2 days ago

currently depends on having a working-age population that is large enough to support the non-working population

This is only a problem if production does not increase dramatically, as it has for the last century. The reason it feels like there are insufficient working people is because parasites siphon from the resource distribution between more and more productive workers and their non working counterparts

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

We already have far more people than necessary jobs. One person with modern trchnology can produce way, way more than one person could even just a century ago.

[–] Cryophilia 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's not about necessary jobs, it's about paying into social security / pensions.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If the jobs aren’t necessary, then surely there’s a way to organize society without those jobs existing.

This is the fundamental argument behind universal basic income.

As to the question of how to fund stuff like pensions or UBI without everyone working, the answer is simply to tax those who are working more, especially those making huge amounts of money.

[–] Cryophilia 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sure, but that's not relevant to the "necessary jobs" thing you brought up.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Your response was

It's not about necessary jobs, it's about paying into social security / pensions.

In my answer those are two topics that are not directly related, although they are linked by both having to do with the economy.

Hence I gave responses to both topics.

[–] Cryophilia 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The "necessary jobs" topic is unrelated to the "fund pensions" topic. And the "fund pensions" topic is the one that's being discussed in relation to population control.

You brought up a completely irrelevant topic, that's what I'm saying.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

It comes full circle because the proposed solution is to increase the number of people who are able to work, with the idea that those people will take on more jobs, and those jobs will fund pensions.

I think this is a bad idea because we already have more workers than useful jobs. An increase in the population wont really help.

[–] Jacob_Mandarin 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah. Thanos should simply have made half of all living beings gay. Much less violent and this would probably also make future generations more likely to be gay too. So it‘ll probably have a much more longlasting effect than killing 50% once.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

Gayness saves lives. I've always said it!