The absence of their influence in Politics will make a massive difference.
The resources captured by the rich are probably a far smaller part of the problems they make than how they use the money they have to shape Politics and Public Opinion (via the Media they own), hence policies, hence the way our society and economy operates to maximized their own wealth.
Most Overconsumption and Negative Externality problems (both things that serve to maximized the profits that end up in the hands of Asset Owners and both the kind of thing that most damages the Environment) could be legislated away, but there is no will and there is no will because the politicians and the media are bought by those who benefit from things being as they are, and they are bought because those people have lots of money to buy them with.
Take the power to buy politicians and deciding what the press puts out away from the rich and all of a sudden profit-reducing pro-Environmental policies are not just politically acceptable but even demanded by public opinion, and given that said rich people would never give up on that without a massivelly destructive fight (literally Revolution), the safest and best option for about 99.9998% of people (8 billion minus 10,000 out of 8 billion) would probably be that a handful of rich people just die.
Probably like you should advocate for global wealth inequality to be fixed, because it is absolutely shameful how much the ultrawealthy (capitalists, the 0.1%) take from the rest of us.
Like, if you're in the "comfortable" group in America, you're in the global 1%. Not because we're doing so amazing, but because we are standing on top of the global south to get there.
I already do! I’m just… disappointed? I don’t know, it’s a mix of emotions that are so very angry at them, especially because they know I want to eat the rich.
Don't be disappointed. That's how you can be turned to the capitalist's interests (yes, you belong with us. They'll only hurt once they know. Class solidarity is paramount and we're your class). You have no shame to bear, just a future to win.
PS: disregard if you do have a shame to bear. You gotta make sure you deal with the shit you've caused, first, then.
1 million is the net worth of the person. Assuming the wealthiest person of your family has 50% of the family's wealth, the wealthiest person is still not in the top 1%.
alternatively we could probably do with just reducing population by every CEO/comapany owner/shareholder/leader/whoever has control that refuses to become climate neutral
It is widely understood that Thanos was insane. Resources aren't naturally limited and his campaign of slaughtering half the populations of planets didn't ensure plenty for the masses. What he accomplished was to teach otherwise isolated civilizations that unless they put aside their differences and worked together they were vulnerable to devastating attack.
The only scarcity there is or ever has been is artificially created by either ineptitude or purposeful in order to prop up the wealthy who are given ownership of land and resources.
If he truly wish for a prosperous universe he would have snapped those fingers and installed the knowledge to create a post scarcity society on every planet with intelligent life in all beings. Because with all things the answer is EDUCATION NOT DEATH.
We as a species, at this very moment in time, have the physical and technological capability to feed every man woman and child on the planet, yet there's somehow not enough food to feed all people and groceries are more expensive than they were 100 years ago. In terms of shear volume, you can stack all of humanity in one small corner of the grand canyon but "there's not enough room for people to live in a home." yet millions of houses and apartments stand empty as placeholders for equity and investment.
Scarcity is a choice, not a fact of existence. Stop buying the propaganda.
What he accomplished was to teach otherwise isolated civilizations that unless they put aside their differences and worked together they were vulnerable to devastating attack.
One point I liked about Alternate History Hub's version of this is that they pointed out that very few people actually knew what happened. Imagine if half the people on Earth today turned to dust in an instant, and imagine this was a world where Marvel had never existed. Most people would interpret that as some sort of act of Divine judgment. A quote I loved from that video was something like, "people will come to many conclusions. Giant purple man with magic space gems is not the explanation they'll go to first...or ever."
I don't think Thanos taught anyone anything. Billions of species throughout the universe saw half their population turn to dust. Then a few years later, all those people just mysteriously came back. They have no idea what a Thanos is. They've never never heard of the Avengers or the Infinity Stones. It's just this completely inexplicable event outside all known laws of science. It's unambiguous proof that some sort of supernatural forces exist in the universe, but everything beyond that is open to interpretation.
I was actually referring to his campaign before he obtained the Infinity Stones to enact his "final solution". He references it in Infinity war when talking to his "daughter" trying to make her see his way by telling her that her home planet had become a "paradise where no child goes hungry".
In the comics, he did it not to fight scarcity but because he was in love with the character Death and wanted to impress her ... Or something like that.
population x individual emissions = global emissions
Which number you want to change says a lot about your politics.
edit: given it’s the daily mail *spits on the ground* it’s very likely the researchers didn’t even say anything about which number to tune, the daily mail just added their special flavor to the headline. (probably also have a good idea which 4 billion has to go)
The upper crust (the top 1/2%) want the 'herd' trimmed by 96%. This leaves 3.5% left to feed and slave for the 1/2% who will be living in Greenland on virgin soil drinking virgin glacier water and who run Earth's feudal system.
Less powerful mobs and they already feel the poors have bred beyond their usefulness and are now just a drain on the resources that the wealthy are destroying to make sure there's not enough abundance so remaining people have to rely on them to survive.
But more poor people means more mindless consumers, which means more profits. And if we know one thing, it's that what the ultra rich want most, is be more rich. They are hoarders after all. And they couldn't concentrate more wealth onto them, if there's no one to take wealth away from. Or maybe that's hypothetical doesn't really work ;)
It's "their" planet. They deserve it because of their wealth. It's how greed works. Most people aren't overridden with greed and so don't understand the concept fully. It's a sickness... an addiction. So all they need are enough slaves to keep them fed and keep all their toys running (a couple million? Five?) and repair their vintage cars. You know, rich people shit. They'll interbreed and voila! The species will devolve back into tree frogs or whatever we came from -
and that will be that.
No way to stop it now, that time has LONG past. So, have fun. But hurry!
It doesn't matter one way or the other. Let's say there's a 1% growth rate of the population. That means you're back to the original population in 70 years. Or doubled the resource use.
Actually scientists in the 1970s were saying we need to do what we can to stabilize AT the 4 billion we were at then. See Limits to Growth and related studies. Cutting back now would help, but far more damage has been caused thanks to everything we've done including but not limited to population pressures than if we had heeded the warnings then and changed our direction. Some feedbacks are probably unstoppable now, no matter what we cut back.
That was primarily about the ability to provide food. The same scientists back then would have said we can't even reach this population level while eating meat.
They were correct until we advanced agricultural science and found ways to more than double our food production.
It was about estimating the effect of continued world population growth on the world's carrying capacity. It's true that it did not have a lot of other variables at play, one important one being climate change. So if anything it was a best case of just a few known parameters, and not all the ones we've affected, many that wouldn't even be known then. The model's projections hold up well enough to have been a wake up call to do something drastically different. And we didn't.
The fact that we now recognize a date each year where Earth has reached its carrying capacity and that date steadily gets earlier should suggest they were right too. Along with plenty of recent studies that say the absolute maximum is probably around 11 billion (so maybe you are a bit correct in saying our tech has given us a bit more room), but the optimum population from these studies is around 2.5 billion.
It does depend on both the minimum standard of living being used as well as how well resources are distributed. If we set almost everyone to the lowest levels now existing, perhaps we could get a few billion more. If it doesn't spike the death rates and reduce birth rates.
Most of the destruction is Capitalism and Consumer Society overproduction and overexploitation - a lot of unecessary shit is done and a lot of what's done is done in unecessarily destructive ways (with lots of Negative Externatities) when it could've been done in far less destructive but less profit-generating ways, all because our political and economic structures are dedicated to the maximization of the wealth of the richest people.
(It's not by chance that Ecologist parties are generally leftwing - the politicies for protecting the Environment are generally diametrally opposite of the politicies that maximize the investment profits of those who own most shit and have the most money)
I bet that only about 100 people need to die (all billionaires) to save the planet, an acceptable sacrifice.
The birthrate in industrialized nations has slipped from slightly above replacement to slightly below replacement over the course of several decades. World population is still growing and estimated to top off at around 10 billion people in the 2080s
Of course, the plutocracy has been preparing for this with the rapid development of their human labor panacea - AI. This massive rush to Create God, as described by the lunatics at Microsoft, Tesla, Amazon, and Google, is much more about finding a low-cost industrially scalable replacement for live humans.
Meanwhile, we're gearing up development of sophisticated methodologies for mass murder and demoing them from Central Africa to Southeast Asia.
The only catch is that much of the modern-day Unaligned States haven't taken it laying down. One reason we're seeing Iranian ballistic missiles focusing their fire on Amazon Data Centers across the Middle East. We're hitting the nexus between western reliance on advanced artificial intelligence in lieu of human labor and their geopolitical rivals seeing these institutions as a threat to the lives and livelihoods of human populations.
You might also want to take a hard look at all those Flock cameras going up across the United States. And how they are increasingly integrated into the national police organizations busy black bagging people and shoving them in concentration camps.
How on earth do you equate curbing wasteful production with halving living standards and what makes you believe that having a lower living standard gives rise to violence? The per year-per person CO2 emissions of Swedes hover at a relatively cool 3.5 tons, while US Americans are emitting 13 tons (2023 statistics). Sweden has half the population density of the United States and is a relatively large country in terms of area. Swedes enjoy higher living standards than US Americans, are therefore more comfortable and they significantly are less violent with gang crime taken into account - which is, just so you know, pure racist fearmongering that plays into US-Israeli imperialist interest.
Let's look at Argentina, because here the standard of living is actually lower than in the States. Argentina's homicide rate is below that of the US's. And I'm not even one to glaze South America, especially not Argentina. Take Indonesia, Philippines, and Malaysia, countries that are relatively crowded compared to Argentina and have even less, they have analogous relationships, that is, there is no clear relationship between violence living standards. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)
No, population control is the definition of eugenics lol.
Controlling the population absolutely requires an authority allowing certain people to have children. There’s no way around controlling who is allowed to have children if you’re controlling the population numbers.
That would de facto have to be done with forced abortions or forced sterilization. There’s no other way to enforce people not having kids.
In theory, you're right. In practice however, you know as well as I do that population control measures would target the poor disproportionately. So whether it intended to be or not, it would end up being eugenics.
Population control is not eugenics, you silly goose! One's concerned only with the number of people. The other with who reproduces. Your definition of eugenics is so broad that any teacher teaching sex ed counts as a eugenicist.
Words have meaning. Don't water them down for cheap points.
Hey it was only the rich assholes who's heads popped, everyone else just participated in a world-wide brawl for like 60 seconds so hopefully most people survived that
Not me saying that going vegan, changing energy and giving up luxuries no one needs like travelling to Fiji every few years would prevent this even with eight billion people.
The problem with just deleting half of the living people is it does nothing to curb the systems that brought the planet to ecological collapse. In such a scenario people would almost definitely fill the void left with even more excess since there's now more breathing room and resources to use excessively. It would not take long, probably less than a century to return to the exact same situation such a magical solution was used to solve
The problem is that Disney wanted to give a somewhat valid reason to Thanos when the reason in the comics is "I want to fuck with Death and killing half of the life of the whole universe might make her horny".
Or we could try to not live and consume resources at the scale of the average US household (let alone the accursed millionaire and billionaire classes).
112 replies
How about we start with 1% and see what happens.
Just the top 10000 would make a big difference already
Then the systems that prop up that 1% continue on as if nothing happened, only people might be paid more evenly.
That's it. Expecting a fundamental shift in how humanity/global society functions just because a comparitive handful of people die is just ridiculous.
But we won't know for sure unless we try.
And of course if they are gone, they won't be there to kick and scream like children against every step of progress.
The absence of their influence in Politics will make a massive difference.
The resources captured by the rich are probably a far smaller part of the problems they make than how they use the money they have to shape Politics and Public Opinion (via the Media they own), hence policies, hence the way our society and economy operates to maximized their own wealth.
Most Overconsumption and Negative Externality problems (both things that serve to maximized the profits that end up in the hands of Asset Owners and both the kind of thing that most damages the Environment) could be legislated away, but there is no will and there is no will because the politicians and the media are bought by those who benefit from things being as they are, and they are bought because those people have lots of money to buy them with.
Take the power to buy politicians and deciding what the press puts out away from the rich and all of a sudden profit-reducing pro-Environmental policies are not just politically acceptable but even demanded by public opinion, and given that said rich people would never give up on that without a massivelly destructive fight (literally Revolution), the safest and best option for about 99.9998% of people (8 billion minus 10,000 out of 8 billion) would probably be that a handful of rich people just die.
Yes, let's get rid of all trans people! /s /s
Thatd include most of us, though.
Would it? What's the net worth of the 80,000,000th richest person?
I'm safe by a wide margin, lol
Bottom of the top 1% globally have a net worth of $1 Million
I'm already on board you can stop trying to convince me
I have a net worth of about 10k.. And a kidney I guess
A kidney? Psssh that's small potatoes, how much RAM do you have?
Good point, 32Gb ddr5
TIL my family is well into the 1%… I don’t know how to feel about this.
Probably like you should advocate for global wealth inequality to be fixed, because it is absolutely shameful how much the ultrawealthy (capitalists, the 0.1%) take from the rest of us.
Like, if you're in the "comfortable" group in America, you're in the global 1%. Not because we're doing so amazing, but because we are standing on top of the global south to get there.
I already do! I’m just… disappointed? I don’t know, it’s a mix of emotions that are so very angry at them, especially because they know I want to eat the rich.
Don't be disappointed. That's how you can be turned to the capitalist's interests (yes, you belong with us. They'll only hurt once they know. Class solidarity is paramount and we're your class). You have no shame to bear, just a future to win.
PS: disregard if you do have a shame to bear. You gotta make sure you deal with the shit you've caused, first, then.
1 million is the net worth of the person. Assuming the wealthiest person of your family has 50% of the family's wealth, the wealthiest person is still not in the top 1%.
https://www.businessinsider.com/top-1-percent-wealth-richest-countries-united-states-monaco-luxembourg-2024-2
Doesn't pass the sniff test, that's almost the amount you need to be in Monaco's top 1%. What's your source?
https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1212/average-net-worth-of-the-1.aspx
Edit: I misread my source, its for the US
So you're a multi millionaire, then?
Because I'm not, I can barely keep my head above water.
lmao you wish
Fine, let's have a $50 million net worth cutoff as a start and we'll keep lowering it until it works.
But the billionaires say we need MORE people so they have enough slaves of the colors they like!
It's like dogs or ball pythons. They're breeding selectively for the most desirable (to them) traits
Gotta have their favorite colorway
alternatively we could probably do with just reducing population by every CEO/comapany owner/shareholder/leader/whoever has control that refuses to become climate neutral
I like this idea, fuck tax incentives and carbon credits.
You get to neutral, you shut down your business, or you die. Your choice!
It is widely understood that Thanos was insane. Resources aren't naturally limited and his campaign of slaughtering half the populations of planets didn't ensure plenty for the masses. What he accomplished was to teach otherwise isolated civilizations that unless they put aside their differences and worked together they were vulnerable to devastating attack.
The only scarcity there is or ever has been is artificially created by either ineptitude or purposeful in order to prop up the wealthy who are given ownership of land and resources.
If he truly wish for a prosperous universe he would have snapped those fingers and installed the knowledge to create a post scarcity society on every planet with intelligent life in all beings. Because with all things the answer is EDUCATION NOT DEATH.
By definition there is always scarcity
We as a species, at this very moment in time, have the physical and technological capability to feed every man woman and child on the planet, yet there's somehow not enough food to feed all people and groceries are more expensive than they were 100 years ago. In terms of shear volume, you can stack all of humanity in one small corner of the grand canyon but "there's not enough room for people to live in a home." yet millions of houses and apartments stand empty as placeholders for equity and investment.
Scarcity is a choice, not a fact of existence. Stop buying the propaganda.
Thr current situation is a choice. Scarcity is a fact. Resources are limited by physics.
The scarcity you're talking about is cosmic in scale, and doesn't have a lot to do with the false scarcity people are talking about.
Absolutely. Still makws it a true statement. I am pedantic, I know. Sorry.
Not all true statements are on topic, I had to learn the hard way too. I know how it is
One point I liked about Alternate History Hub's version of this is that they pointed out that very few people actually knew what happened. Imagine if half the people on Earth today turned to dust in an instant, and imagine this was a world where Marvel had never existed. Most people would interpret that as some sort of act of Divine judgment. A quote I loved from that video was something like, "people will come to many conclusions. Giant purple man with magic space gems is not the explanation they'll go to first...or ever."
I don't think Thanos taught anyone anything. Billions of species throughout the universe saw half their population turn to dust. Then a few years later, all those people just mysteriously came back. They have no idea what a Thanos is. They've never never heard of the Avengers or the Infinity Stones. It's just this completely inexplicable event outside all known laws of science. It's unambiguous proof that some sort of supernatural forces exist in the universe, but everything beyond that is open to interpretation.
I was actually referring to his campaign before he obtained the Infinity Stones to enact his "final solution". He references it in Infinity war when talking to his "daughter" trying to make her see his way by telling her that her home planet had become a "paradise where no child goes hungry".
In the comics, he did it not to fight scarcity but because he was in love with the character Death and wanted to impress her ... Or something like that.
population x individual emissions = global emissions
Which number you want to change says a lot about your politics.
edit: given it’s the daily mail *spits on the ground* it’s very likely the researchers didn’t even say anything about which number to tune, the daily mail just added their special flavor to the headline. (probably also have a good idea which 4 billion has to go)
Eating the rich would do more
Gee, I wonder which group is going to be genocided by the wealthy....
What, you think it'll just be one group?
So you often feel the need to "one up" people in conversation?
Lol, ok dude.
Ecofascism.
The koalas are cunts but at least they enforce 18-hour mandatory breaks.
The upper crust (the top 1/2%) want the 'herd' trimmed by 96%. This leaves 3.5% left to feed and slave for the 1/2% who will be living in Greenland on virgin soil drinking virgin glacier water and who run Earth's feudal system.
Half? You're a dreamer!
Why would they want so few people to oppress and exploit?
Less powerful mobs and they already feel the poors have bred beyond their usefulness and are now just a drain on the resources that the wealthy are destroying to make sure there's not enough abundance so remaining people have to rely on them to survive.
But more poor people means more mindless consumers, which means more profits. And if we know one thing, it's that what the ultra rich want most, is be more rich. They are hoarders after all. And they couldn't concentrate more wealth onto them, if there's no one to take wealth away from. Or maybe that's hypothetical doesn't really work ;)
It's "their" planet. They deserve it because of their wealth. It's how greed works. Most people aren't overridden with greed and so don't understand the concept fully. It's a sickness... an addiction. So all they need are enough slaves to keep them fed and keep all their toys running (a couple million? Five?) and repair their vintage cars. You know, rich people shit. They'll interbreed and voila! The species will devolve back into tree frogs or whatever we came from -
and that will be that.
No way to stop it now, that time has LONG past. So, have fun. But hurry!
Thanos could have doubled the amount of space and resouces in the universe just as easily.
Just to get swallowed up by the same 1%?
It doesn't matter one way or the other. Let's say there's a 1% growth rate of the population. That means you're back to the original population in 70 years. Or doubled the resource use.
Since he has infinite power, he could have just made it so capacity constantly increases with population.
As you said, either way, it is a flawed premise.
Less consumers and less slaves? Noooo what will the investors do? We need MORE MORE MORE
There was this book about a fertility reducing virus.
Dan Brown Inferno
Right, that one. Punchline was good.
Actually scientists in the 1970s were saying we need to do what we can to stabilize AT the 4 billion we were at then. See Limits to Growth and related studies. Cutting back now would help, but far more damage has been caused thanks to everything we've done including but not limited to population pressures than if we had heeded the warnings then and changed our direction. Some feedbacks are probably unstoppable now, no matter what we cut back.
That was primarily about the ability to provide food. The same scientists back then would have said we can't even reach this population level while eating meat.
They were correct until we advanced agricultural science and found ways to more than double our food production.
Almost like its not a population problem, its a logistics problem.
Always has been.
Hey... How dare you bring logic into my eco-fashy views of "fixing" global suffering...
/s
(Also not making fun of the comment you responded to, but those that I have seen so much on reddit.)
It was about estimating the effect of continued world population growth on the world's carrying capacity. It's true that it did not have a lot of other variables at play, one important one being climate change. So if anything it was a best case of just a few known parameters, and not all the ones we've affected, many that wouldn't even be known then. The model's projections hold up well enough to have been a wake up call to do something drastically different. And we didn't.
The fact that we now recognize a date each year where Earth has reached its carrying capacity and that date steadily gets earlier should suggest they were right too. Along with plenty of recent studies that say the absolute maximum is probably around 11 billion (so maybe you are a bit correct in saying our tech has given us a bit more room), but the optimum population from these studies is around 2.5 billion.
It does depend on both the minimum standard of living being used as well as how well resources are distributed. If we set almost everyone to the lowest levels now existing, perhaps we could get a few billion more. If it doesn't spike the death rates and reduce birth rates.
Or, yk, live in a different way. But that might be harder than having a lot of people die. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Most of the destruction is Capitalism and Consumer Society overproduction and overexploitation - a lot of unecessary shit is done and a lot of what's done is done in unecessarily destructive ways (with lots of Negative Externatities) when it could've been done in far less destructive but less profit-generating ways, all because our political and economic structures are dedicated to the maximization of the wealth of the richest people.
(It's not by chance that Ecologist parties are generally leftwing - the politicies for protecting the Environment are generally diametrally opposite of the politicies that maximize the investment profits of those who own most shit and have the most money)
I bet that only about 100 people need to die (all billionaires) to save the planet, an acceptable sacrifice.
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
The data suggests that destroying the planet is not really linked to government type.
Are these scientists with us on the room right now?
The issue with halving in that people will be left beehind alone and sad. We could just remove all humas, this way nobody is sad
Pretty sure the birth rate is plummeting. So continue doing nothing i guess.
Fucking paying money to raise a wage slave renter for the shitty bosses and landlords of the world.
The birthrate in industrialized nations has slipped from slightly above replacement to slightly below replacement over the course of several decades. World population is still growing and estimated to top off at around 10 billion people in the 2080s
Of course, the plutocracy has been preparing for this with the rapid development of their human labor panacea - AI. This massive rush to Create God, as described by the lunatics at Microsoft, Tesla, Amazon, and Google, is much more about finding a low-cost industrially scalable replacement for live humans.
Meanwhile, we're gearing up development of sophisticated methodologies for mass murder and demoing them from Central Africa to Southeast Asia.
The only catch is that much of the modern-day Unaligned States haven't taken it laying down. One reason we're seeing Iranian ballistic missiles focusing their fire on Amazon Data Centers across the Middle East. We're hitting the nexus between western reliance on advanced artificial intelligence in lieu of human labor and their geopolitical rivals seeing these institutions as a threat to the lives and livelihoods of human populations.
You might also want to take a hard look at all those Flock cameras going up across the United States. And how they are increasingly integrated into the national police organizations busy black bagging people and shoving them in concentration camps.
This is wrong. We can also curb extremely wasteful production.
Half the living standards. Will be uncomfortable, and likely violent.
How on earth do you equate curbing wasteful production with halving living standards and what makes you believe that having a lower living standard gives rise to violence? The per year-per person CO2 emissions of Swedes hover at a relatively cool 3.5 tons, while US Americans are emitting 13 tons (2023 statistics). Sweden has half the population density of the United States and is a relatively large country in terms of area. Swedes enjoy higher living standards than US Americans, are therefore more comfortable and they significantly are less violent with gang crime taken into account - which is, just so you know, pure racist fearmongering that plays into US-Israeli imperialist interest.
Let's look at Argentina, because here the standard of living is actually lower than in the States. Argentina's homicide rate is below that of the US's. And I'm not even one to glaze South America, especially not Argentina. Take Indonesia, Philippines, and Malaysia, countries that are relatively crowded compared to Argentina and have even less, they have analogous relationships, that is, there is no clear relationship between violence living standards. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)
But do you see a pattern in your assumptions?
Misspelled Eugenicists.
Or/and eco-fascism
The Nazis loved to romanticize Eastern European wilds in their propaganda. Not so much when they were driving through it with their armored cavalry.
Population control is eugenics in the same way dressing up as a ghost for Halloween makes you a Klan member.
No, population control is the definition of eugenics lol.
Controlling the population absolutely requires an authority allowing certain people to have children. There’s no way around controlling who is allowed to have children if you’re controlling the population numbers.
That would de facto have to be done with forced abortions or forced sterilization. There’s no other way to enforce people not having kids.
Eugenics is concerned with who reproduces. Simply giving out free birth control to anyone who wants it is a population control measure.
You have Nazi vision. Everyone is Hitler.
In theory, you're right. In practice however, you know as well as I do that population control measures would target the poor disproportionately. So whether it intended to be or not, it would end up being eugenics.
Lynching someone from a tree in an outfit you got at Spirit Halloween doesn't make you less of a murderer.
That has no relation to what I wrote.
Concentration camps are concentration camps, no matter how you try to spin it.
Population control is not eugenics, you silly goose! One's concerned only with the number of people. The other with who reproduces. Your definition of eugenics is so broad that any teacher teaching sex ed counts as a eugenicist.
Words have meaning. Don't water them down for cheap points.
Lolz! We're just starving you to death in a prison camp rampant with disease, hehe!
Fucking twee fascists.
Your hobby is inventing custom definitions for words and then working yourself into a tizzy over them.
I have seen that movie. It's kingsman. And the end is fabulous.
Head explosions !!
Hey it was only the rich assholes who's heads popped, everyone else just participated in a world-wide brawl for like 60 seconds so hopefully most people survived that
@[email protected] [citation required]
bro its a meme for light chuckles. nobody said that seriously.
@[email protected] let's make memes of halving (decimating?) billionare population instead, then :)
Halve Life 4b confirmed.
I kind of liked how they acknowledged the backwards thinking Thanos had in the new Spider-Man movie and just made it a joke.
Not me saying that going vegan, changing energy and giving up luxuries no one needs like travelling to Fiji every few years would prevent this even with eight billion people.
Do we? Cuz like, I'm willing to go
Wasn’t there just an article saying 4 billion will die from climate change by 2050?
sounds like a self solving problem then
It's the poor half, not the giga-polluting americans (and europeans, to a lesser extend).
Fake: The Daily
MailFail would never use the word "Scientists" when there's a perfectly good "Boffins" lying around.are the avengers going to say thier sorry for thanos.
Its literally a busload of people and we know their names
Thanos did nothing wrong
The problem with just deleting half of the living people is it does nothing to curb the systems that brought the planet to ecological collapse. In such a scenario people would almost definitely fill the void left with even more excess since there's now more breathing room and resources to use excessively. It would not take long, probably less than a century to return to the exact same situation such a magical solution was used to solve
God I fucking hate malthusians so much
One thing that always got to me with Thanos and all the infinity stones bs is why didn’t he just make the universe 1% bigger?
The problem is that Disney wanted to give a somewhat valid reason to Thanos when the reason in the comics is "I want to fuck with Death and killing half of the life of the whole universe might make her horny".
Prepare for nuclear war folks.
There’s a whole hemisphere that hasn’t been pulling its own weight. Crack.
Or we could try to not live and consume resources at the scale of the average US household (let alone the accursed millionaire and billionaire classes).
Plenty of stuff to go around actually