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”.
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
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.
Dude, chill.
There is nuance between eugenics and forced births.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
Study reveals that humans are the main cause of human-caused environmental effects.
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.
Forbes beat you too it.
Capitalism called.
They said “no”… ☹️
I believe this is a very valid concern. They need the workers in pursuit of growth.
Also, I think it’s no coincidence that women’s rights are being revoked.
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.
True. Remove the US and we’re halfway there already.
The US is bad, but when you look at CO2 emissions it is still just at 12.7% of global emissions for example. Not even close to half. Obviously on a per capita bases that is still crazy high.
Your data does not include all the imported goods and land use required for Americans, but merely territorial emissions. US lifestyle is particularly wasteful, so yes, we’ll be halfway there counting also all the imported trash that no longer needs to be produced and shipped.
Even that does not change things too much. Not to half anyway, but just to 14% of global CO2 emissions.
4% of the world’s population and 14% of CO2 emissions. The fact that we’d need 5 Earths to host a world population living like Americans just shows that CO2 emissions don’t cover everything which defines planetary boundaries.
Written on iPhone
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, 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.
We also consume a lot of meat and the like, which means we can feed a lot more people, if we wanted too.
Today a good number of countries have natural population declines due to people having too few children. That includes some big ones like China, Russia, Japan, Germany and Italy. Also all continents beside Africa have a fertility rate below replacement. So in the coming decades the global population is likely to fall. Most of that is the side effect of good developments like women getting more rights, education and people becoming wealthier. It will just take time.
Can I get a snap?
Malthusianism is fascist bullshit. Who has to go? This will be used for genocide if we allow any “there’s simply too many people” narrative to subvert climate discourse.
We can feed, clothe and shelter everyone easily and comfortably. But we can’t all have the luxuries of the most wealthy. Tough shit. That doesn’t mean poor people having children has anything to do with our situation
No one says to kill people. We can easily do this by reducing birth rate.
It will always be some kind of “them” who should do that, never the “us”. And what about rich people? Are they bound by the same rules or only in theory?
Well I don’t have kids so I’m already part of the solution. I’m already committed to being child free
People already don’t want kids. Cause of capitalism and sexism.
But it doesn’t hurt for people to have better access to contraceptives.
Safe abortions.
And to make adoption easier and more socially promoted.
You probably don’t want children. For people who do, this is an enormous sacrifice I wouldn’t ask of anyone. Just because of the comfort and luxury of developed nations, other people are somehow the problem. And not to mention it opens the door to fascists with specific ideas to cull the population
When did I say we should restrict people from having kids. ?
I offered other solutions to the problem.
All of those solutions would be voluntary.
They are not solutions, that’s where you’re dead wrong
I think you don’t understand how social services work.
Making contraceptives more accessible does in fact reduce pregnancy . There is a ton of research on this.
Secondly, making adoption more socially acceptable and easier would encourage people to adopt.
Cultural ideas and misconceptions about children often make people discount this adoption both as an option for persons giving up baby and potential parents who could adopt.
No one says to kill people yet
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.
Everyone decides for themselves. It’s already happening.
…we really needed a study to conclude that lol I thought that was just common sense.
You still need someone to write it down.
Common sense is the least common of all senses
I hope when it’s my turn they do it quickly.
How about banning private jets first? And then stop subsidizing meat production? Then stop building cities around cars. Tax the production of plastic, to reduce the use of it.
Study shows it’s actually the massive corporate conglomerates that do exponentially more damage to the Earth than the entire animal kingdom combined, humans included.
Reduce your carbon footprint is a Big Oil created PR campaign. It places the “climate crisis” blame on the individual consumer.
Great, start with yourself then.
So let’s extrapolate here. Getting rid of all humans would help the earth even more? Sounds about right.
