You must log in or register to comment.
Or just a few hundred billionaires.
Yeah, I agree
Crappy scientist. The planet doesn’t need saving. Humans do. It’ll do just fine without us.
I always thought Thanos’ idea was stupid because his reasoning was about fighting over resources. Less people, more resources to go around.
How the fuck did he not think “I can wish for infinite resources?” Solves his issue with the universe and nobody gets turned into dust.
I mean, he was a villain.
Also, in the comic he did it because he was simping for death. Got ghosted for it too.
this is an ecofascist position. our planet can be balanced if we adjust the way we live, the way we eat, and the way we treat eachother
Are you suggesting cannibalism?
As there seems to not be a single drop of humanity in that people, I wouldn’t call it cannibalism, so every thing stay cool from a western moral perspective, I guess
Eating the rich would help yes.
So you’re saying eat the rich? I’m on board!
yup!
It’s Daily Mail. Some scientist probably gave two options to fix things, either do better or suffer.
Earth’s human population will decline without direct action all on it’s own, one way or another. The alternative is the things you mentioned.
… And when you say “adjust the way we live” you mean either stop breeding or go back to medieval standards of living
i don’t actually (at least not in full). the empires of the global north have already shifted their population standards, decreasing birthrates and experiencing longer lives. the issue is that the global north is also the part of the world that’s doing all the polluting and preventing the global south from gaining access to the education and resources that we enjoy. if we decolonize the earth, people will naturally make better decisions about their local environments and be more empowered to make better decisions about how to be and how to live.
additionally the land management techniques employed by the colonial powers are ATROCIOUS. the majority of north american farm lands that can produce food are used to grow feed for cattle. the cattle are then raised not in rangelands that could not otherwise support horticultural agriculture, but instead in small feedlots. you will note, i am not calling for universal veganism. ecoterianism usually shies away from going this far due to the question of rangelands. but do you know what most rangelands in north america are used for today? single family homes and golf courses. these are not sustainable patterns of behavior. if we shifted our diets to more grains, more ruffage, less meat, and abolished the institution of the HOA so more people could grow more of their own food, our current population could be sustained.
additionally, for all the technological advances we have made of late in the energy sector, even finding that land with solar panels on it can produce more agricultural output, much of the world still relies on coal fired electric plants. many of the hydroelectric dams that have been built and have already destroyed indigenous communities sit dormant. why? because global economic policy is largely determined by who owns what minerals beneath the earth. this is being exacerbated by placing data centers for high energy cost AI computations in inappropriate locations, driving people who are already struggling deeper into poverty.
there is so much waste in this economic system that is made simply because it makes the speculation markets grow. we can live without that waste. the reason we don’t is pure, simple, greed. and what it will take to undo is the power of the people gathering together to say “you may own the factories, the machines, and the land, but without our brains and muscles not a single wheel can turn.” We the people are capable of so much more than we give ourselves credit for and there’s so much room for improvement in this world that ecofascism seeks to ignore by reducing the problem down to just “there’s too many of us, and i can’t fathom adjusting how i live, so that’s it, that’s the end of it”
There is a maximum human population this planet can support and we have been over it by a couple billion for a while and we’ve been using technology to expand that number and sustain the population. Those methods are burning out our methods to grow crops and are reliant on fossil fuels.
One way or the other the population will decrease. At this point it’s a question of whether we do it through planned decrease or a population crash due to starvation from a combination of soil deterioration and climate change stress.
It’s only an 5% of the population of first world countries which are the cause of the environment problems. Eliminating these + the scientists of this article would save the planet.
I agree, let’s kill the chuds and the billionaires
Pretty sure we would he fine without the richest 1000.
-
Announce that in 90 days the richest $1000 will be publicly executed for the good of humanity.
-
Watch as all the billionaire bastards scramble to dump a bunch of money into “humanitarian projects” to clean up their image & get out of the top 1000.
-
90 days later, use financial data from the date of the announcement to pick the top 1000.
-
I agree,
sigh Yeah sure, scientists surely said that like this…
I keep wondering how those Journalists from Daily Mail, Fox News, Bild etc. can look into the mirror each morning without punching themselves.
Jeffrey Epstein had LOTS of Scientist friends. Stephen Pinker got “kicked off the island” after disagreeing with Epstein’s views on eugenics.
Science is impartial, scientific institutions are not
lots of money for their addictions.
Journalists? I don’t think so.
If we start with those that consume the most and pollute the most then we might not need half, right? So that means we start with the wealthiest, yes?
I guess so yes yes
Sure. Just don’t eat them.
That’s junk food, and eating junk food is bad. Instead, compost and eat the veggies
Here’s a fun fact: if you’re one of those people who thinks killing people is the correct solution to the climate crisis, you should know that you only have to kill one American to get the same reduction in pollution as killing ten congonese people. Please use this information however you like.
Here is another fun fact, killing people is one of the favorite deliberate mischaracterizations of the degrowth movement that advocates for a lower population through fewer births. Not murder. We don’t even have to force it. It’s hapening already if you look at birth rates.
Personally, My interpretation of degrowth is more bicycles and less plastic crap. I don’t think legislating birth rates will ever be an efficient strategy.
China would agree.
It’s both fewer people and less consumption.
No one said legislating neccessarily. We’re doing it now anyways. Most people have the sense that the future won’t be kind to their kids and choose to jave fewer/none.
So you’re saying the degrowth movement doesn’t need to do anything because people are having less kids anyway?
No. I’m saying we don’t need to be heavy handed with reproductive rights because people are making the right choices here. Some policy encouragement would be helpful, but people can be free to choose for themselves.
We need a lot of policy work on lowering average consumption. Income inequality/poverty, planned obsalescence, right to repair, fossil fuels, food production, building codes and municipal design standards, public transit and electrification, habitat restoration, chemical and pollution regulation etc, all still need a lot of work.
Yeah. All of that is ten times as worth the effort as worrying about birth rates.
It’s hapening already if you look at birth rates.
That’s why I’m skeptical of degrowth actually doing something to effectively reduce consumption. Because some individuals consume 3, maybe 4 orders of magnitude more resources (and the accompanying pollution or ecological destruction, however you want to measure it), I’ve always believed that reducing population runs a significant risk that the remaining smaller population will use far more resources than the previous larger population.
You see it in rich countries. We have low birth rates and high consumption rates, and our consumption grows exponentially even as our population does not. We run a serious risk of being very destructive childless retirees, and consumption and pollution and emissions and ecological impact need to still be worked on, even if we do shrink the population.
Now do billionaires.
Half the population … or, like 50 billionaires.
Sounds like the right time to bring back the choppy boys
Bring the fancy cutlery hun’, meat is on the menu today
Trump: “Hold my Diet Coke!”
Scientists: “no not like that!”
That’s why they’re not stopping global warming.
Is this a real article?
it’s daily and it’s mail.
Let’s just be on the safe side and make it an 8 billion reduction of humans.
I know you’re joking,
spoiler
Press X to Doubt
but what’s your plan when it comes time to “reduce” the children? Gas chambers? Firing squads? Strangle them as you look into their eyes?
Just fire up the lightsaber and start swinging.
We already elected Trump, Putin, Modi, Xi, Netanyahu. Phase one is done. Children are already being killed by the hundred thousands (Palestine, canceling USAID, etc). Next phase: final world war, total annihilation. Give Earth another 1000 to 10.000 years to recover after humans have been wiped out.
