So let’s extrapolate here. Getting rid of all humans would help the earth even more? Sounds about right.
Oh yeah? Which half? WHICH HALF MOTHERFUCKER?!?💢🪿🔪
By 2200, if you read the article. So basically have less children.
Everyones half
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.
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
I’d like to volunteer to start the list with about a hundred people we can get rid of right now.
Forbes beat you too it.
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?
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.
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
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.
Just waiting for Theil or some other tech bro to start a company called “Vault-Tec”.
Damn I hate them but the brand response was so real for me my first instinct was wow that’d be fucking cool. (It wouldn’t be)
I fully expect project code name Thanos.
Actually, we’d only need to lose 50 maybe 100 people. Total.
Yeah, I agree. We need to kill the chuds and the tech broligarchs and the billionaires as well
Nah, their fortunes would just go to their heirs and you’d still have the same problem with roughly the same number of people. The solution is a system of regulation and taxation that stops incentivizing the pursuit of profit over all else. For example, shareholders should not be able to profit when workers don’t. Real estate owners should not be able to engage in cartel-like behavior, collaborating with each other to fix prices.
fascinating people like thiel has actual ivf children.
It’s easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine a world without capitalism.
We don’t give their heirs wealth my dude. It’s a revolution. You round up the ruling class and seize their wealth and give it back to the masses that produced it.
I know “that’ll never happen”. Said every person throughout history just before a revolution.
The wealth redistribution wouldn’t solve this particular problem though. If the ecological footprint of a quadrillionaire’s wealth is giant spaceships, mega yachts, private jets, data centers and fuel for all of it then it doesn’t matter who owns them. The ecological damage will always happen unless that wealth is disposed of or massively downcycled.
I think you are assuming the destructive effects of “wealth” are constant. This is not at all reasonable. 1 million people being able to afford shelter, healthcare, and food is not comparable to the unnecessary destruction we see today brought about by datacenters, private jets, super yachts, wars for the capitalist military industrial complex, etc, etc. Those absurdities do not exist without a concentration of wealth.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying? But, “wealth” does not have the linear relationship with the negative outcomes that you are implying. It is very much the concentration of wealth and power that results in these outcomes. The destructive power wealth has grows exponentially with its concentration in fewer and fewer hands. Simply because as it concentrates the wealthy are able to both cause the destruction AND avoid their consequences at the same time.
also - rich people being scared of the masses and consequences will likely contribute to them well-behaving
they will flee to argentina.
sure, some may, but not all can - especially considering the rich people from the local nationalities. E.g. the Aldi Brothers or Schwarz Family will certainly draw a lot oft anger from the populace when that happens. Also they are not able to move out most oft their assets out of the country when it happens, making them vulnerable to national confiscations/limiting access.
so - long story short - better to try and only get limited result than not trying and getting no result at all
If we’re legally killing them, we can legally confiscate their wealth :-)
I dunno. Let’s try the first plan and see how it goes first.
The powers don’t allow reforms. Removal of powers and a rebuild with safeguards is needed
You say you want a revolution
We-ell you kno-o-ow
We all wanna save the world
You tell me it’s the institutions
We-ell you kno-o-ow
We all wanna save the wo-or-r-ld
But when you talk about destuction
Don’t you know that you can count me out
It’s theseus’ ship. is it destruction is kind of a dilemma
I would remind you that this comment chain began with someone suggesting that we’d “only need to lose 50 maybe 100 people”. I’m under no illusions as to what was meant by that, and I’m saying that generally speaking, that sort of “solution” doesn’t improve things. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”, etc.
Force is sometimes necessary, yes, but generally speaking, the people who suggest it as a first resort before ever having gotten personally involved in attempts at other solutions, are the people who should be kept very far away from the real decision making.
No one suggested it first. We’ve been working for decades through peaceful measures. Hell, we’re still doing it now and they are responding with marking our organizations as “domestic terrorist” with both parties spending every ounce of AIPAC funds to stop us.
Those that make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. We are right on that edge right now. We don’t make the choice to use violence. They do.
That’s a lot of “we” and “our”. Are you a member of a community organization that’s working to peacefully improve things? Have you or someone you personally know been prosecuted as a terrorist for peaceful activism?
Before trying Michael Collins IRA stuff, you should at least attempt CS Parnell Land League stuff. Especially since you need a large percentage of the community to have already gotten organized before either form of action can hope to succeed, and that organization is easier to accomplish when you’re not asking people to kill people. How many of your neighbors are you on a first name basis with? If you can’t organize a community boycott then you could never hope to organize a revolution.
deleted by creator
Yeah I’m all for them to peacefully choose exile. But by the looks of it they’re rushing towards the force scenario. Which is then technically a self defense situation.
And yeah, it’s the hydras head unless there’s bigger changes as well. It’s a small chance either part would work on its own
Better to say that everyone earning hundred times minimum wage gets eliminated.
The money gets split when it goes to the heirs. Just keep eliminating the rich until the money inherited is diluted enough its not significant.
You have to keep creating heirs for that to happen.
The money gets split when it goes to the heirs.
Sometimes
Study reveals that humans are the main cause of human-caused environmental effects.
Thanos enters the room.
My god, thanos is right
Uh no
