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.
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.
No one says to kill people yet
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.
So you’re saying reducing the proliferation of a virus can help the organic body it’s attacking?
That’s fascinating.
So let’s extrapolate here. Getting rid of all humans would help the earth even more? Sounds about right.
Oh yeah? Which half? WHICH HALF MOTHERFUCKER?!?💢🪿🔪
By 2200, if you read the article. So basically have less children.
What they are describing is a natural reduction in population that occurs automatically when countries become more economically developed. Trying to steer this is gonna have downstream impacts. You are not going to roll out these reforms everywhere all at once, so where are you going to start? Because if democracy and a global economy are still going to exist in 2200, relative population sizes matter. If, say, India develops their rural regions, does a 180 on feminism, and halves their population in the process, but Pakistan doesn’t, that’s going to have geopolitical ramifications, and not good ones. This kind of thinking scares me, no matter what the framing is. People are good, and we can have more of them, and we should have more of them. We just need to be smarter about how we use our resources.
So basically have less children.
Funny how they leave out that taking just 1% of the wealthiest for a nice dirt nap would help more
It wouldn’t though.
Richest one percent are responsible for same level of climate warming as the 5 billion poorest people so yeah it would.
Right, but we’re not talking about the poorest half here.
Population is declining in Japan, Korea, Europe and North America. That’s not the poorest half by a long shot.
It would actually.
They don’t use nearly as much ressources as half the population. Come on now.
You can go with them if you want to defend them so much
I’m not defending them. They are horrible and should be guillotined.
But it’s disingenuous to think that reducing our population by half wouldn’t have a greater impact.
Feel free to provide sources to prove me wrong.
The article suggest halving the global population by 2200. So not some nuclear war or disease killing half of humans basically over night. So more Japan and less nuclear war.
japanese made several series, scenarios over overpopulation. blue gender, evangelion,etc.
Those were originally made in the 90s. Japans population peaked in 2008 and has declined by over 5million people since. All without war, disease or stuff like that.
This is also true for some other countries. The current medium UN forecast projects Chinas population to more then half by the end of the century.
thanos was right.
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.
Study reveals that humans are the main cause of human-caused environmental effects.
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.
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.
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.
