this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
127 points (97.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43945 readers
634 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] lightnsfw@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Even the fertilizer thing is arguably bad. It's allowed the population of the world to explode at an exponential rate and burn through resources even faster rather than be capped at a much more manageable level.

[โ€“] xkforce@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The alternative wasn't a reasonable population, it was billions starving. The solution was, and still is, giving women better control over whether or not they have children.

[โ€“] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 3 points 8 months ago

Even more are going to starve when we run out of fossil fuels and can no longer sustain the agriculture required to feed the now massively inflated population. Not to mention all the other damage having so many more people is doing to the world that is also probably going to kill us even if we solve the resource problem.