Can I get a snap?
Capitalism called.
They said “no”… ☹️
I’d like to volunteer to start the list with about a hundred people we can get rid of right now.
The president of the United States of America beat you to it.
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!
Just waiting for Theil or some other tech bro to start a company called “Vault-Tec”.
I fully expect project code name Thanos.
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”.
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”.
Well, noone needs to get genocide, just stop making more
Oh you mean eugenics and reproductive control. Yea, also genocidal.
Jfc, I’m not castrating anyone, just asking nicely - consider not making more. Maybe 8 billion is plenty.
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.
deleted by creator
Capitalism is what paid for them to do the study in the first place.
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.
I was under the impression non capitalist countries never existed after its invention.
Actually, we’d only need to lose 50 maybe 100 people. Total.
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.
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.
If we’re legally killing them, we can legally confiscate their wealth :-)
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.
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
I dunno. Let’s try the first plan and see how it goes first.
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
I am not particularly sympathetic, but there is a group that takes this quite seriously:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT[A]) is an environmental movement that calls for all people to abstain from reproduction in order to cause the gradual voluntary extinction of humankind. VHEMT supports human extinction primarily because it would prevent environmental degradation.
Who gets to have kids? I saw that “high income nations” use more resources. But “low income nations” have significantly higher birth rates. So, who gets to have kids and who decides?
White centibillionaires with a background in apartheid of course.
Whats funny is that is about the population where if we did everything perfectly and the earth was not so stressed would be possibly sustainable. Assumine we want to live a modern type experience. We have so damaged the world since then though and even before and we obviously are not looking to do things in the most sustainable manner possible. So like we would need to go way below that for centuries for the earth to recover to its sorta healthiest state. What really cracks me up is people will be like. We produce more food than ever and we could have a much more massive population. Its like yeah if you don’t care about sustainability and the future.
Great, start with yourself then.
I hope when it’s my turn they do it quickly.
Slowly Narrow Approved Population (SNAP)
