• trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    16 days ago

    Declining birthrates will save the planet. There’s already more people than we can sustainability support.

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      104
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      16 days ago

      We CAN sustain everybody we have now. It’s just billionaires have decided it’s more profitable to let a huge section of society suffer. The more suffering for us, the more profit for them. But you have to balance it, so it doesn’t lead to revolt.

      Thats what ends suffering. Not decreased birthrates, but instead death and revolt of those holding back food and shelter from those that need it, so they can raise prices on unsold units.

      • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 days ago

        Not so sure, we are pulling resources out of the earth at a ridiculous rate. Even with green energy we are still reliant on mining for everything. Goods, fertilizer, the stuff for solar panels. We’re going to run out of easy to access stuff sooner or later.

        • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          15 days ago

          Degrowth is only an option after the dismantling lf capitalism. We are pulling unreasonable and unsustainable amounts of resources from the earth. This should be ended but that cannot be done while those resources are owned by capitalists who must by the nature of capitalism expand that extraction infinitely. If we want sustainability through the reduction of wasteful and unnecessary use of resources we need a system that is not predicated on infinite growth in a finite system. We can sustain ourselves and the environment, just not like this.

      • trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 days ago

        We could feed everyone now, but not sustainably. To produce the amount of food we do now, we need fertilizers made from limited resources like oil and pesticides/fungicides that destroy the ecosystem. If the current agriculture section of the world completely moved to sustainable practices next year there wouldn’t be enough food to support half of the human population.

    • mastertigurius@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      16 days ago

      There’s actually more than enough resources to go around, but enormous amounts are lost to waste, corruption, inequality and greed. The world isn’t actually overpopulated, but over-urbanized. If it was made more feasible for people to live in the districts, more decentralised and with less waste of resources, human society would look very different.

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        16 days ago

        Why that direction? Intuitively I’d imagine stuffing the humans into cities would allow more mass transit, fewer cars, more economies of scale, and more area left over for nature. So more like Singapore, less like Texas.

        Has anyone ever done scientific research on this question?

      • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        16 days ago

        “In my perfect ideal world, that we have no path to achieving, we could sustain our large population indefinitely.”

      • trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 days ago

        We produce enough food now, but not sustainably. Fertilizers and pesticides are destroying ecosystems.

          • trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            15 days ago

            Fertilizers that need fossil resources to produce and pesticides that (for now) increase crop gain by killing off insects but in the long term are damaging the ecosystem.

    • marcos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      16 days ago

      It looks like the world can support the current population. Barely.

      But yeah, low birth rate is not something that must be solved right now. And it will solve itself eventually. We should be working into making people comfortable, but if people think their current situation isn’t good enough to have children, just shut the fuck up and let them be.

      • Barbecue Cowboy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        16 days ago

        Hard to prove, but even the idea that the world can barely support the current population is likely just propaganda trying to reinforce a scarcity mindset.

        We could probably pack nearly everyone in the entire world in to an area the size of the United Kingdom, and most could be living better lives than they do now. Population Density comparable to New York City would get you around 7 billion people. Obviously, we can do better than that, but just trying to put it into perspective.

        Even for agriculture, you could support the current population with what we’ve got and a lot more if that was your priority. There are dramatic gains to be made by reducing or eliminating meat and unless we made some new unfortunate discoveries that would 100% get you there, but you might not even have to. We’re strong into theory territory and might have to focus on prioritizing fertile land for agriculture but having everyone in the world eat like an average american would likely be doable at current levels if we actually wanted to prioritize that.

      • 18107@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        16 days ago

        Kill* about 15 billionaires and suddenly we can support a lot more people with the same resources.

        *Other options available

    • ynthrepic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      16 days ago

      Not actually true, unless your means of supporting people includes provisions for the extravagances of carbon-based energy and huge amounts of inefficiency everywhere in the supply chain.

      If we want to carry on with capitalism as we know it now, yes. And you know it’s going to be the elderly, sick, disabled, among the working class population that need to go first. You know, those who can’t be forced to work. It’s not the poor working class populations who wealthy right-wing policy makers are asking to have more babies.

      The world is already on track for around 10 billion people anyway, because there are already enough young people in developing nations who we expect to have families of their own in the next few decades.

      So good thing we could carry that many people sustainably if we get our shit together.

      Not that I’m against Pokemon inspired sexy times between consenting adults.

  • TrackinDaKraken@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 days ago

    It’s only a problem for our species. And, only for future potential members of our species. The declining birth rate isn’t going to hurt anyone alive today. Not even billionaires, not in any way that matters.

    Overall, the Earth would be much happier and peaceful without us. We’re not special, we’re just selfish.

    Finally, probably, even in the worst human-caused catastrophe, at least some pockets of humanity would survive. Again, though, not that it really matters.

    TLDR; Don’t worry about it. It’s no one’s problem to solve. We didn’t ask to be born, and none of us owe our species anything.

    • enkers@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      15 days ago

      The declining birth rate isn’t going to hurt anyone alive today.

      Having a top heavy age demographic means less tax revenue will be split between more required services. There will also be fewer labourers with more labour requirements. The only ones it won’t hurt are the billionaires.

      It’s probably a good thing in the long run that human population is stabilising, but it’s going to be problematic until we get to that stable state.

      • zikzak025@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        15 days ago

        Agreed. It will require careful redistribution of labor and resources to ensure stability with a declining population.

        But nations typically want to hoard their resources, and the value of labor is measured only in overall utility to the billionaire class, so I don’t believe it will be a graceful decline for the majority of the world in practice.

      • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        15 days ago

        This is only a problem under capitalism. We are immensely more productive than we used to be and can provide for everyone. A great majority of our labor is just wasted on increasing shareholder value and producing frivilous shit we don’t need.

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 days ago

      Hey guys, did you know that in terms of male human and female Pokémon breeding, Vaporeon is the most compatible Pokémon for humans? Not only are they in the field egg group, which is mostly comprised of mammals, Vaporeon are an average of 3”03’ tall and 63.9 pounds, this means they’re large enough to be able handle human dicks, and with their impressive Base Stats for HP and access to Acid Armor, you can be rough with one. Due to their mostly water based biology, there’s no doubt in my mind that an aroused Vaporeon would be incredibly wet, so wet that you could easily have sex with one for hours without getting sore. They can also learn the moves Attract, Baby-Doll Eyes, Captivate, Charm, and Tail Whip, along with not having fur to hide nipples, so it’d be incredibly easy for one to get you in the mood. With their abilities Water Absorb and Hydration, they can easily recover from fatigue with enough water. No other Pokémon comes close to this level of compatibility. Also, fun fact, if you pull out enough, you can make your Vaporeon turn white. Vaporeon is literally built for human dick. Ungodly defense stat+high HP pool+Acid Armor means it can take cock all day, all shapes and sizes and still come for more

  • BootyEnthusiast@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    16 days ago

    I didn’t fuck my Vaporeon. I didn’t cum on my Vaporeon. I didn’t put my dick anywhere near my Vaporeon. I’ve never done anything weird with my Eveelutions. I promised myself I wasn’t going to make apology videos after last years thing so I’m just trying to be as short and honest with this as possible.

    • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      And here I paid for sleep as android like a rube… Better not start using Pokémon sleep, it’ll classify me somewhere between snorlax, psyduck, and goldeen.

  • Sharlot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    15 days ago

    Pokémon GO: touch grass ✅ Pokémon Sleep: touch pillow ✅ Now we just need Pokémon Rent so we can afford kids 😂