Study shows it’s actually the massive corporate conglomerates that do exponentially more damage to the Earth than the entire animal kingdom combined, humans included.
Reduce your carbon footprint is a Big Oil created PR campaign. It places the “climate crisis” blame on the individual consumer.
Malthusianism is fascist bullshit. Who has to go? This will be used for genocide if we allow any “there’s simply too many people” narrative to subvert climate discourse.
We can feed, clothe and shelter everyone easily and comfortably. But we can’t all have the luxuries of the most wealthy. Tough shit. That doesn’t mean poor people having children has anything to do with our situation
No one says to kill people. We can easily do this by reducing birth rate.
It will always be some kind of “them” who should do that, never the “us”. And what about rich people? Are they bound by the same rules or only in theory?
Well I don’t have kids so I’m already part of the solution. I’m already committed to being child free
People already don’t want kids. Cause of capitalism and sexism.
But it doesn’t hurt for people to have better access to contraceptives.
Safe abortions.
And to make adoption easier and more socially promoted.
No one says to kill people yet
Meanwhile, in my country, the US government gives tax credits for children. No kids? No tax credits.
Oh yeah? Which half? WHICH HALF MOTHERFUCKER?!?💢🪿🔪
By 2200, if you read the article. So basically have less children.
So basically have less children.
What they are describing is a natural reduction in population that occurs automatically when countries become more economically developed. Trying to steer this is gonna have downstream impacts. You are not going to roll out these reforms everywhere all at once, so where are you going to start? Because if democracy and a global economy are still going to exist in 2200, relative population sizes matter. If, say, India develops their rural regions, does a 180 on feminism, and halves their population in the process, but Pakistan doesn’t, that’s going to have geopolitical ramifications, and not good ones. This kind of thinking scares me, no matter what the framing is. People are good, and we can have more of them, and we should have more of them. We just need to be smarter about how we use our resources.
Everyones half
You cannot build a policy in such a way that population halving is distributed equitably unless you run a global forced sterilization lottery. Which has its own ethical problems. Maybe we could, idk, all agree to eat beef twice a month instead of every day and stop throwing shit fits over renewables and nuclear before economics and water scarcity makes fossil fuel plants impossible to support. Just a thought.
Funny how they leave out that taking just 1% of the wealthiest for a nice dirt nap would help more
It wouldn’t though.
It would actually.
The article suggest halving the global population by 2200. So not some nuclear war or disease killing half of humans basically over night. So more Japan and less nuclear war.
japanese made several series, scenarios over overpopulation. blue gender, evangelion,etc.
Those were originally made in the 90s. Japans population peaked in 2008 and has declined by over 5million people since. All without war, disease or stuff like that.
This is also true for some other countries. The current medium UN forecast projects Chinas population to more then half by the end of the century.
So you’re saying reducing the proliferation of a virus can help the organic body it’s attacking?
That’s fascinating.
So let’s extrapolate here. Getting rid of all humans would help the earth even more? Sounds about right.
thanos was right.
Oh snap!
Halving the population would definitely help, but some country populations have a lot lower impact than others.
The real problem is the consumerism mentality, where we need to buy even bigger cars, TVs, houses, clothes, etc.
This is what destroys our planet. And even if the population halves, this trend can negate much of the effect.
True. Remove the US and we’re halfway there already.
The US is bad, but when you look at CO2 emissions it is still just at 12.7% of global emissions for example. Not even close to half. Obviously on a per capita bases that is still crazy high.
Your data does not include all the imported goods and land use required for Americans, but merely territorial emissions. US lifestyle is particularly wasteful, so yes, we’ll be halfway there counting also all the imported trash that no longer needs to be produced and shipped.
Even that does not change things too much. Not to half anyway, but just to 14% of global CO2 emissions.
4% of the world’s population and 14% of CO2 emissions. The fact that we’d need 5 Earths to host a world population living like Americans just shows that CO2 emissions don’t cover everything which defines planetary boundaries.
Written on iPhone
…we really needed a study to conclude that lol I thought that was just common sense.
You still need someone to write it down.
Common sense is the least common of all senses
Scientists argue that the indiscriminate use of Earth’s resources by humans has led to environmental effects, ranging from biodiversity loss to climate change.
Motherfuckers will find it easier to imagine genociding half of humanity than ending capitalism.
Lol, what do you think indiscriminate use of resources is? That’s literally capitalism!
Unless you’re an ecofascist neonazi, in which case the same phrase gets interpreted as “use of resources by the wrong kind of people”.
According to me, the wrong kind of people are the chuds, billionaires, the tech broligarchs and Neo Nazis and maga chuds and other far right extremists
So yeah, maybe we should kill those people
Genocide is unneeded. Population levels decline naturally as people urbanize. Just keep moving people into cities and industrializing farming and the problem will solve itself.
Not with capitalism. Look at countries that do not take in many immigrants. South Korea and Japan are the results of what you’re talking about.
It’s not just about industrialization. The exploitation of labor under capitalism still requires bodies to build its alter. The contradictions of capitalism are the primary problem. Value comes from labor. The profits of capital come from labor. They don’t want “less people”. They just want you to hate other workers and see them as “the problem”.
They will get less labor whether they want it or not. They are banking on being able to fill it in with AI.
Not at all. AI is primarily a tool for domestic surveillance and war. AI cannot produce surplus value to be extracted for profit. They aren’t trying to replace workers with AI. At least not in the long term.
Maybe it’s a fantasy but if they could replace humans with machines that never bargained and went on holiday, they would in a heartbeat. And that’s what they want to do. Maybe they will fail, maybe the technology will develop. It can do many things today that it couldn’t so a few years ago. It’s already solved more difficult mathematical proofs than any human alive today for example.
Yeah, that’s not true. The math proofs it has solved are not “more difficult than any solved by a living person”. Many of the proofs AI has solved are corner case conditions that are not being actively worked on by mathematicians. In a trivial example. Image a problem like:
x = n + 25AI says, hey, let’s assume n=3.
AI solved the proof that
3 + 25 = 28.Then we get an article posted about how AI solved the impossible problem of
n + 25Now, it can be helpful to have these less general proofs solved. It can help mathematicians in creating a more general proof (what they are usually focused on).
But, as far as I’m aware, these are most of the contributions of AI so far in the field of mathematics. You’re falling for the hype around it. It’s mostly filling in gaps for corner cases that are not actively being worked on.
Which makes sense. Because it’s just a text generation algorithm that predicts the most likely characters. It’s using training data for the
n = 3case that it learned from another already solved problem and then injecting it into the unsolved problem. Sometimes is spits out something that makes sense, a human being has to verify it, and then a corner case for mathematical proof is “solved”.It’s not capable of thinking or rationalizing to anything new. It is filling in gaps in a field of research that is not primarily focused on “gap filling”.
It’s why it’s “having success” in Math but not Physics. Mathematicians focus on general proofs that apply under all conditions. So, the field inevitably has a lot of problems that could be solved by a lot of brute force for specific conditions.
In Physics, scientist are constantly trying to “fill gaps”. They work with real world measurements and observations. Any new “gap” is constantly being tested. AI has no gaps to fill with its brute force way of “thinking”. And it’s completely incapable of coming up with theories or hypothesis on a level a human does.
This is why it’s not solving ground breaking mathematics proofs and why it is mostly useless in replacing humans in the scientific process. Because it isn’t actually thinking.
Sorry, rant. But this is something that bothers me and you hit a nerve.
Sorry the wording of that phrase was too ambiguous. I meant it had solved more proofs than any human had in their lifetime, and those were at least difficult enough to stump humans for years or decades. I didn’t mean that they were more difficult than proofs that humans had solved, simply that the AI had solved a higher quantity of them, and that, on average, they would be considered difficult. At least difficult enough to stump humans for a pretty good stretch of time.
Well, noone needs to get genocide, just stop making more
Oh you mean eugenics and reproductive control. Yea, also genocidal.
Dude, chill.
There is nuance between eugenics and forced births.
Jfc, I’m not castrating anyone, just asking nicely - consider not making more. Maybe 8 billion is plenty.
Probably need to direct this to the people in India and china who hold 1/4 of the worlds population
Cool. You can “say that”. But that doesn’t happen. People have kids.
Come up with one idea or policy that actually results in people having less children? Because that’s what the comment you replied to is saying. They are talking about the inevitable policies that come from the “just have less” ideas.
The idea is pointless if it just lives in your head. Would be great if everyone that read this comment gave me $1. But no one’s gonna do that unless I actually had a reason for them to. The reasons to place on people to have less children either don’t work or are human rights violations.
You sound like the dumb “smart guy” that says “we could have world peace if everyone just smoked weed everyday”.
You don’t solve something by coming up with a solution with no means of reaching it. Hell, it’s not really a solution, it’s just a conclusion. It’s why the “population problem” is so good for propaganda. It redirects the problem and distracts stupid people that haven’t actually thought through how that would work.
The plan here is women’s education and access to contraceptives. These 2 things very consistently cause a significant decline in fertility rates. To the point that leaders across the globe are shitting their pants over it.
Consider that ~50% of births globally are from unplanned pregnancies. Prevention of those can do a lot of heavy lifting.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Absolutely! Famously non capitalist countries have no capability of funding studies. Nope. Hell, we’d never have gotten the first satellite or first person into space without capitalism! Everything good comes from capitalism! And everything bad, yeah, it’s socialism. And if it’s REALLY bad, it’s communism.
deleted by creator
Communism is, by definition, “a classless, moneyless, stateless society”.
When people say “no communist countries have existed” this is what they mean. Because that’s not ever been achieved.
There are countries that are run by communist parties (China). But these are not countries that have “obtained Communism”. You are confused because you never looked up the definition of a communist society.
For example, China is a country run by the Chinese Communist Party under a state structure of Socialism (with Chinese characteristics).
Since you don’t understand basic definitions I doubt that you’re criticisms of “communist countries” were very insightful.
deleted by creator
Economist Richard Wolff has a lot of material on YouTube that explains the differences between Capitalism and Socialism as a mode of production, in addition to how this relates to how China’s economy differs from those like America. Assuming you are genuinely interested in learning more
deleted by creator
I’d like to volunteer to start the list with about a hundred people we can get rid of right now.
deleted by creator
The president of the United States of America beat you to it.
He’s gotta be worth quite a few points alone, at least!
Capitalism called.
They said “no”… ☹️
I believe this is a very valid concern. They need the workers in pursuit of growth.
Also, I think it’s no coincidence that women’s rights are being revoked.
Can I get a snap?
Isn’t climate change going to take care of this for us? Parts of the planet are becoming uninhabitable, food crops are failing, fish stocks are on the verge of collapse… We are going to struggle to feed 10 billion people unless things drastically change!
We also consume a lot of meat and the like, which means we can feed a lot more people, if we wanted too.
Today a good number of countries have natural population declines due to people having too few children. That includes some big ones like China, Russia, Japan, Germany and Italy. Also all continents beside Africa have a fertility rate below replacement. So in the coming decades the global population is likely to fall. Most of that is the side effect of good developments like women getting more rights, education and people becoming wealthier. It will just take time.
Historically when people are desperate , die younger, they responded by having more children
Historically, when birds struggle to find food they kick eggs out of their nests. Historically, when guinea pigs struggle to find food they eat their young.
Historically, that might be true, but that is because historically it made sense to have more children in order to eventually gather more food or earn more money. Birth rates are dropping all over the place. Even in countries like India with traditionally very high birth rates. We are entering into a post-ubundance world, resources like food and clean water are becoming increasingly scarce and increasingly expensive. It makes no sense having babies if you’re not sure you’re going to be able to feed them.
