831
Resources (mander.xyz)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
241 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 1 year ago (7 children)

No. I think humanity should aim for absolutely every single human in every country in every single region, urban or rural could have a level of life quality comparable to what's consider middle-high income level in USA/Europe.

If we cannot achieve that we'd better give up as an intelligent species and leave room for que squids to try.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    You can give up all you want.

    The biggest issue with your argumentation is that it takes one extreme ("farmers need to live in rural areas") and use that as a justification for everyone who is not covered by that rule.

    For example, all of suburbia can go. Close to nobody living there is a farmer and people only live in the suburbs because they can use a car to get to city center quickly.

    But also in more rural areas there are a lot of people who commute to their office job in the next city.

    That is not a totally valid life choice by far. If you want to work in the city, move to the city.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

    not everyone have to live the way you enjoy living. Diversity is good.

    I could say. Because I know international travel is polluting and I don't like it let's put a global ban on international traveling. No one is allow to travel. Probably people who enjoy traveling (you might be among them) will be furious against me and it would be dictator like from me trying to take that away from them.

    No. Environment should never be a excuse to have a dictator like mindset of just depriving people of their lifestyles. That will be fight against, and people fighting that away would be on the right side of story.

    Once again, we are a clever species. Surely we can find a way to make diverse lifestyles work. I completely disagree with your radical posture that that lifestyle is imposible to have without human extinction. You completely disregard that things like remote work or decentralized offices exist. The solutions already exist. It would be matter of expanding them to reduce the amount of people needing daily commute.

    Now even you say all suburbia have to go too. That's type of close-minded extremism should never be the beam that guides the future of humankind. It would be a sad future. Let people be free to live in suburbia if they want, let people to life in a rural area if they want. At this point the only think that's not a valid life choice here is your intention to oppress everyone into the only lifestyle you consider "valid".

    And I'm pretty sure that the environment is nothing but a excuse here. It would be nice to disclose the true reasons for the hate towards people who doesn't live in cities.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Sure. The survival of the species can never be an excuse to reduce personal comfort even a little bit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Once again the survival of the species is not on the line because of that.

    That's just an excuse you are making to justify a hate that has other roots.

    Prove is in the complete disregard of proposed solutions: remote work, decentralized offices, traffic reduction instead of complete suppression, population reduction... And apparently disregard for other forms of pollution that could be reduced or eliminated instead, for instance, international traveling, or traveling at all, maybe people living in cities should never visit nature or different places, that travel will destroy the world!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    population reduction

    Yep, sure, genocide is of a problem the less drastic option.

    You are a clown.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Last reply, after blocking your because your insult.

    Population control do not require any violent measure.

    It can be as simple as making people lives better, as it has been proven that populations with higher life quality have less children. Then achieving the objective of having a lesser global population .

    Discussion ends here as you have been blocked.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    If we completely stop having children right now, worldwide, the population will not meaningfully decrease for the next 50 years.

    The major amount of climate damage will be done within the next 20 years.

    The only option to use population control to reduce climate damage would be to kill roughly half of the world's population within the next 2-3 years.

    So if that's your solution, you are either advocating for the greatest genocide the world has ever seen or are argueing in bad faith because you know that your solution is nonsense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent