this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
245 points (98.0% liked)

World News

39184 readers
2097 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] carl_dungeon 66 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Yeah but we need this long term. I get it, current economies are fueled by endless growth, raise your hand if you think that’ll keep working for the next 100, 300, 500 years!

The reality is that we probably need to reduce the global population by a few billion and then sustain that number and scrap our entire economic system in favor of one that prioritizes sustainability. Better now than in 100 years when there’s no food or water left.

[–] Coreidan 41 points 8 months ago (1 children)

100 years? The way things are going I doubt we have more then 10-15 before mass starvation begins due to crop failures and water shortages.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 8 months ago

Indeed but even without climate change, the current system is doomed to collapse because it's simply not sustainable.

Climate change is going to accelerate that 10X.

I for one see it as a good thing because fuck this arrangement.

[–] Dkarma 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Nah we'll just do what we are doing until it's too late cuz conservatives don't want change

[–] Nutteman 6 points 8 months ago

It's right there in the name, baby. Conserve the status quo. Even better, reverse it to an older, even worse status quo if possible

[–] stoly 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Human population should probably reduce to about 10% of what it currently is. Basically, as a species, people need to get over the arrogance of needing to propagate THEIR genetic lines, as if that's somehow important. It's unsustainable.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Will you be the one to be deciding who can and cannot have kids then? Will sterilizations be optional? Or will they be mandatory for undesirables only? Every study ahows that simply providing decent food and home security results in decreased in birth rates.

[–] stoly 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If you'll re-read my comment, you'll notice that I put the onus on people as a whole and not some group that would make the decisions.

[–] Glytch -5 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Hey, you're the one saying he wants 7.2 billion people to die, take some responsibility and tell us who should be first into the camps.

[–] Passerby6497 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Why do people assume that talking about reducing population by lowering birthrates always jump to mass murder? Idk, maybe it's just a severe lack of reading comprehension or critical thinking...

[–] Glytch -4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Because when you're talking about reducing population "to 10%" you sound like a genocidal ghoul. Work on your own critical thinking and maybe consider acquiring a modicum of common sense.

[–] Yawweee877h444 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I read the original comment, and they never said to kill anyone. As an example if people only had 1 kid per person, that would eventually drop the population by 50%, then keep going. This is just an example, and a peaceful one.

They never said anything about killing or genocide, nor did they imply it. Maybe you lack common sense.

[–] Harbinger01173430 1 points 8 months ago

You'll prevent the birth of trillions of people because of that. Monster! /S

[–] youngGoku 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

We all die eventually. Nothing wrong with that. If I learned anything in DiffEq it's that uncontrolled growth will eventually blow up the model or find some mode of control.

Reducing human population will be a painful process and we're already seeing the beginning of it. People don't need to be killed to reduce population by 10%.

Birth rate needs to be smaller than death rate.

There are lots of things that effect birth and death rate.

[–] Glytch 3 points 8 months ago

He said "to 10%" not "by 10%", meaning he thinks we should reduce population by 7.2 billion people. That requires more than statistical differences. That requires mass death.

[–] Dkarma 1 points 8 months ago
[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I agree that we should replace the economic system, but overpopulation is a myth and depopulating is not actually necessary in our journey for sustainability.

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/november/december-2022/valuable-people-debunking-myth-overpopulation#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20most%20popular,human%20action%20and%20economic%20progress.

[–] carl_dungeon 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

First of all, it’s Brigham young university. Secondly, higher population doesn’t magically make more helium on the planet, or lithium, or the sand used in concrete, or petroleum, or other rare earths. All these things are finite. Some of these things are already in short supply now. How is adding 20 billlion more people gonna make finite and scare essential resources more abundant? Your link talks about availability of resources within a system where there is essentially limitless production- you can’t make batteries and solar cells and plastic and food and gas out of magic Mormon underpants, these are real exhaustible resources which are already being taxed. Maybe “god will provide” huh.

[–] Soggy 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If we can reach asteroid mining that will solve a lot of scarcity issues.

[–] guacupado 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Who's upvoting this? You're not wrong, but that's a completely different conversation and moving the goalpost.

[–] Soggy 1 points 8 months ago

"...depopulating is not actually necessary in our journey for sustainability." Illustrating this point in the comment you replied to.

[–] Embarrassingskidmark 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

good god i hope not