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

World News

48472 readers
1609 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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 65 points 1 year 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@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year 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.

[–] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 year 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@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] Nutteman@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year 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@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year 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.

[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 17 points 1 year 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@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year 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@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year 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@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year 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@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year 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@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year 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@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

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

[–] youngGoku@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year 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@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago
[–] fadingembers@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 1 year 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@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] guacupado@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

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

[–] Embarrassingskidmark@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

good god i hope not