Study reveals halving human population gradually could help Earth
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/earth-human-population-halved-200-years-resources-b3022756.htmlOpen linkView original on lemmy.worldSyndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on lemmy.worldhttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/earth-human-population-halved-200-years-resources-b3022756.htmlOpen linkView original on lemmy.world
65 replies
…we really needed a study to conclude that lol I thought that was just common sense.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. At least, thats what I'm told by communists any time I criticize a "communist" country.
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.
What do you mean? I'm pretty dumb so typing slowly would help. If good things happen it can be attributed to communist leadership but if bad things happen its still capitalisms fault? Cuz that's what it sounds like.
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
I read one of his books when I was in college. It had to have been "Democracy at Work", based on the dates of his publications. I strongly believe he frames idealistic, unrealistic arguments. Each premise I've heard presented also depends solely on all members of society being highly altruistic, especially those given the discretion to regulate. He also tends to completely ignore the consistant abuse of power and individual consequence associated with every iteration of attempted communism. Including current regimes. Granted, you could argue that's an issue with hierarchical structures. Something I think must exist to an extent. I'm not a total free market guy at all. I think a balance of socialist legislature and open market would lead to the best quality of life for the largest amount of humans. Specifically, comprehensive healthcare, housing, education and access to clean food and water. All should be available at little to no cost. I don't see that being a pie in the sky impossiblity, like trying to force implementation of communism. I found far more agreeable information in "Road to Serfdom" by Hayek. It's also completely possible for communist groups to exist within capitalist states. The opposite is not possible. Individual choice isn't a luxury afforded.
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.
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.
also - rich people being scared of the masses and consequences will likely contribute to them well-behaving
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.
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.
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
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.
Get the population downd to around 35,000 and we can all go to the superbowl. 24 of us even get to play!
Slowly Narrow Approved Population (SNAP)
How about raising VAT and killing all the poor?