▲ 483 ▼ New Delhi - during lockdown vs now (thelemmy.club) submitted 1 day ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to c/mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world 82 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 6 points 1 day ago (10 children) If you could just snap your fingers and half the world's population would disappear would you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] cloudshouter@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 hours ago (1 child) Straight half? No. A select 3% a year for five years? Maybe. If you’ve seen any of the realistic critiques of the Thanos snap you know that doesn’t go well. Trimming down the fascists, oligarchs, nationalist, theocrats, tech barons, and similar greed and hate mongers should be enough without crashing everything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 1 point 6 minutes ago Well resource consumption wouldn't go down THAT much. Outside of private jets and the like, most shit is still consumed by people. Making it all illegal works, killing the people who make it possible for us does not because new ones will spring up. permalink fedilink source parent [–] yermaw@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 hours ago We could just behave, we dont need to kill half of everyone. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 5 points 8 hours ago I would probably get botox for my chin first and then think about it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago Id just have the wealthiest die 5 billion times permalink fedilink source parent [–] snowdriftissue@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago (2 children) Holy fuck why does Lemmy have so many ecofascists permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] huppakee@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago It's not like they are welcome in many other places permalink fedilink source parent [–] ALiteralCabbage@feddit.uk -1 points 6 hours ago (1 child) Resorting to calling people ecofascists feels pretty reductive. As the world currently exists, and under current economic systems, population growth is a pretty huge issue, especially while basically zero effort is being put into reducing carbon emissions globally. There was an article somewhere in these threatlds that gave a decent summary: The Earth cannot sustain the future human population, or even today's, without a major overhaul of socio-cultural practices for using land, water, energy, biodiversity, and other resources What a lot of people (myself included) struggle with is that the amount and significance of change needed to make an actual difference is huge right now, and it requires a concerted global effort to get anywhere close to halting what feels like an inexorable rise in earth's temperatures. Until we can change this then humans might as well be described as a virus and looking at forced population control (in this case of transport etc. under covid) and seeing a measurable improvement in our environment feels cathartic and, honestly, easier to obtain than the global overturning of capital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snowdriftissue@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children) Resorting to calling people ecofascists feels pretty reductive. Goes on to describe their definitionally ecofascist beliefs in detail Overpopulation is a myth started by nazis and eugenicists. People aren't viruses. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ALiteralCabbage@feddit.uk 1 point 2 hours ago Define ecofascism then, because its easy to just fuck around and shit on an opinion without providing an alternative. I'm not saying we need eugenics or a cull., and I'm certainly not blaming the global south for existing in a world that was driven by short sighted rich European capitalists. What I am saying is: Population is a problem provided the status quo doesn't change The status quo just ain't changing. Not fast enough, anyway. In light of this the current state of human existence (and the systems which support it) could be reasonably described as a virus. Exponential growth at the cost of a host? Prove me wrong. Solutions? Fucking sea change and a total shift in the way we occupy the planet. We're not over crowding we're over producing (and over consuming). What's eco-fascist about that, and if you don't agree, please let me know. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nouvellalia@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago Yeah, overpopulation is really easy to handle and doesn't require violence. Give kids a genuine education that they can continue into adulthood, and access to birth control and reproductive healthcare, and bam, population growth is fixed. The population problem is intentionally caused by the epstein class, so they can have abundant, desperate, cheap labor. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 47 points 1 day ago (20 children) If I could snap my fingers and all the world's billionaires disappear I would, or oil refineries. Not people though. Humans aren't the virus. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] jlow@slrpnk.net 2 points 6 hours ago (1 child) Snap for all the cars to disappear! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] i_am_hiding@aussie.zone 5 points 5 hours ago (1 child) No. People would starve to death. Cars are necessary. Not everyone lives in the CBD of the capital city. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FundMECFS@piefed.zip 3 points 4 hours ago (1 child) Cars are not inherently necessary. But we built around them and made them necessary. That can change. We control how we build and what assumptions we make. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jlow@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 hour ago Yep, cars are not necessary (esp what the vast majority does: one person in a car build for four or more). Public and freight transport would totally work. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (19 replies) [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child) If I could snap my fingers and have people wake up from the capitalist propaganda they've been force-fed their whole lives, I would. Population is not the issue, it's a deflection. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 child) Population is definitely an issue there’s no many problem that wouldn’t be instantly solved by going down to a hundred million people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 child) If your only problem is that you want more resources available for yourself, I can see how you'd come to that conclusion, but you're wrong. It wouldn't solve the underlying problems, and in fact it would create a whole set of new ones. Modern civilization depends heavily on economies of scale, and your magic finger snap does nothing to change how resources are produced, distributed, or consumed. You're also assuming that every human consumes resources at roughly the same rate. They don't. Not even close. A tiny fraction of humanity consumes vastly more resources than billions of other people. Your finger snap doesn't address that inequality at all. The same people and systems that concentrate resources now would simply have an even larger pool of resources to hoover up afterward. Then what? Snap your fingers again? And follow the logic to its conclusion. If reducing humanity to 100 million "solves" problems because fewer people are consuming resources and competing for them, then 1 million should be even better. Five thousand better still. Ultimately, zero humans means zero poverty, zero war, zero homelessness, zero human carbon emissions, and zero human suffering. Problem solved! Except obviously it isn't, because eliminating the people who experience a problem is not the same thing as solving the problem for those people. We don't have billions of people living in poverty because there simply isn't enough stuff on Earth to go around. We have enormous disparities in who controls resources and who gets to consume them. Fantasizing about eliminating most of humanity while leaving that system completely intact makes you a stooge for the oligarchs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -4 points 1 day ago (1 child) But even with these slower rates of growth, our population is already far above the sustainable carrying capacity given by Bradshaw and team's models. The gap between their optimum number of 2.5 billion and our current population size of 8.3 billion may help explain the problems with overconsumption our species currently faces. Earth's Population Has Surpassed The Planet's Capacity, Study Suggests permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 6 points 23 hours ago (1 child) Did you actually read what you provided? It's really not the defense of your point that you are making it out to be. Lead author, Corey Bradshaw (Who also co-authored Human Population Reduction is Not a Quick Fix for Environmental Problems), argues that our current consumption system is unsustainable. I couldn't agree more! The 2.5 billion figure cited within is not some immutable physical limit on the number of human bodies Earth can contain. The authors explicitly acknowledge that a "sustainable" population depends on things like standard of living, economics, social conditions, and resource consumption. Their ecological-footprint estimate of 2.35 billion specifically assumes today's average material standard of living and current consumption distribution, including the enormous consumption of the wealthiest people. You're taking a model of how many people our planet can sustainably support under particular socioeconomic and consumption conditions and treating it as evidence that the people themselves are the fundamental problem. That's not what the evidence shows, though. Not even the evidence you yourself brought to the table, sorry! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -2 points 23 hours ago (1 child) It's a number of people that the planet can carry based on reality. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago* (1 child) Reality is malleable. Sure, the current circumstances of how resources are divided and used is reality. The current population is reality. We are both discussing ways in which our reality can be transformed to the benefit of all. Your suggested path involves the death of billions of people, while my suggested path involves some people having slightly less exorbitant lifestyles. Your suggested path is not only extreme, but it wouldn't even work according to the very scholars you are citing. THAT is reality. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -2 points 21 hours ago (1 child) Sounds good enjoy your fairy tale take on the world I'll stick with the reality we're living in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago (1 child) The reality of ignoring all evidence to validate wishing you could kill most people for no reason? And I'm the one living in a fairy tale? Okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -3 points 21 hours ago (1 child) All evidence points to the fact we have more people on this planet than the planet can sustainably carry. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago All evidence aside from the evidence you supplied that said the opposite? I mean really, ALL evidence? All of it? But you can supply none? But it's ALL the evidence? Right. You are literally just saying things. You could fit every single human being on earth into one metropolitan area. It's our behavior that is unsustainable, not our population. Go lick a boot. permalink fedilink source parent [–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago (1 child) I was on Thanos' side the entire time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago I felt like this watching Black Panther. The "bad" guy wanted to give Wakanda's weapons to the oppressed and downtrodden people of the world, and I was like "yeah, sounds good." permalink fedilink source parent [–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago Without a second thought permalink fedilink source parent [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago *Starts dancing flamenco permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cloudshouter@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 hours ago (1 child) Straight half? No. A select 3% a year for five years? Maybe. If you’ve seen any of the realistic critiques of the Thanos snap you know that doesn’t go well. Trimming down the fascists, oligarchs, nationalist, theocrats, tech barons, and similar greed and hate mongers should be enough without crashing everything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 1 point 6 minutes ago Well resource consumption wouldn't go down THAT much. Outside of private jets and the like, most shit is still consumed by people. Making it all illegal works, killing the people who make it possible for us does not because new ones will spring up. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 1 point 6 minutes ago Well resource consumption wouldn't go down THAT much. Outside of private jets and the like, most shit is still consumed by people. Making it all illegal works, killing the people who make it possible for us does not because new ones will spring up. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yermaw@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 hours ago We could just behave, we dont need to kill half of everyone. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 5 points 8 hours ago I would probably get botox for my chin first and then think about it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago Id just have the wealthiest die 5 billion times permalink fedilink source parent
[–] snowdriftissue@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago (2 children) Holy fuck why does Lemmy have so many ecofascists permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] huppakee@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago It's not like they are welcome in many other places permalink fedilink source parent [–] ALiteralCabbage@feddit.uk -1 points 6 hours ago (1 child) Resorting to calling people ecofascists feels pretty reductive. As the world currently exists, and under current economic systems, population growth is a pretty huge issue, especially while basically zero effort is being put into reducing carbon emissions globally. There was an article somewhere in these threatlds that gave a decent summary: The Earth cannot sustain the future human population, or even today's, without a major overhaul of socio-cultural practices for using land, water, energy, biodiversity, and other resources What a lot of people (myself included) struggle with is that the amount and significance of change needed to make an actual difference is huge right now, and it requires a concerted global effort to get anywhere close to halting what feels like an inexorable rise in earth's temperatures. Until we can change this then humans might as well be described as a virus and looking at forced population control (in this case of transport etc. under covid) and seeing a measurable improvement in our environment feels cathartic and, honestly, easier to obtain than the global overturning of capital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snowdriftissue@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children) Resorting to calling people ecofascists feels pretty reductive. Goes on to describe their definitionally ecofascist beliefs in detail Overpopulation is a myth started by nazis and eugenicists. People aren't viruses. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ALiteralCabbage@feddit.uk 1 point 2 hours ago Define ecofascism then, because its easy to just fuck around and shit on an opinion without providing an alternative. I'm not saying we need eugenics or a cull., and I'm certainly not blaming the global south for existing in a world that was driven by short sighted rich European capitalists. What I am saying is: Population is a problem provided the status quo doesn't change The status quo just ain't changing. Not fast enough, anyway. In light of this the current state of human existence (and the systems which support it) could be reasonably described as a virus. Exponential growth at the cost of a host? Prove me wrong. Solutions? Fucking sea change and a total shift in the way we occupy the planet. We're not over crowding we're over producing (and over consuming). What's eco-fascist about that, and if you don't agree, please let me know. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nouvellalia@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago Yeah, overpopulation is really easy to handle and doesn't require violence. Give kids a genuine education that they can continue into adulthood, and access to birth control and reproductive healthcare, and bam, population growth is fixed. The population problem is intentionally caused by the epstein class, so they can have abundant, desperate, cheap labor. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] huppakee@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago It's not like they are welcome in many other places permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ALiteralCabbage@feddit.uk -1 points 6 hours ago (1 child) Resorting to calling people ecofascists feels pretty reductive. As the world currently exists, and under current economic systems, population growth is a pretty huge issue, especially while basically zero effort is being put into reducing carbon emissions globally. There was an article somewhere in these threatlds that gave a decent summary: The Earth cannot sustain the future human population, or even today's, without a major overhaul of socio-cultural practices for using land, water, energy, biodiversity, and other resources What a lot of people (myself included) struggle with is that the amount and significance of change needed to make an actual difference is huge right now, and it requires a concerted global effort to get anywhere close to halting what feels like an inexorable rise in earth's temperatures. Until we can change this then humans might as well be described as a virus and looking at forced population control (in this case of transport etc. under covid) and seeing a measurable improvement in our environment feels cathartic and, honestly, easier to obtain than the global overturning of capital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snowdriftissue@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children) Resorting to calling people ecofascists feels pretty reductive. Goes on to describe their definitionally ecofascist beliefs in detail Overpopulation is a myth started by nazis and eugenicists. People aren't viruses. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ALiteralCabbage@feddit.uk 1 point 2 hours ago Define ecofascism then, because its easy to just fuck around and shit on an opinion without providing an alternative. I'm not saying we need eugenics or a cull., and I'm certainly not blaming the global south for existing in a world that was driven by short sighted rich European capitalists. What I am saying is: Population is a problem provided the status quo doesn't change The status quo just ain't changing. Not fast enough, anyway. In light of this the current state of human existence (and the systems which support it) could be reasonably described as a virus. Exponential growth at the cost of a host? Prove me wrong. Solutions? Fucking sea change and a total shift in the way we occupy the planet. We're not over crowding we're over producing (and over consuming). What's eco-fascist about that, and if you don't agree, please let me know. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nouvellalia@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago Yeah, overpopulation is really easy to handle and doesn't require violence. Give kids a genuine education that they can continue into adulthood, and access to birth control and reproductive healthcare, and bam, population growth is fixed. The population problem is intentionally caused by the epstein class, so they can have abundant, desperate, cheap labor. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] snowdriftissue@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children) Resorting to calling people ecofascists feels pretty reductive. Goes on to describe their definitionally ecofascist beliefs in detail Overpopulation is a myth started by nazis and eugenicists. People aren't viruses. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ALiteralCabbage@feddit.uk 1 point 2 hours ago Define ecofascism then, because its easy to just fuck around and shit on an opinion without providing an alternative. I'm not saying we need eugenics or a cull., and I'm certainly not blaming the global south for existing in a world that was driven by short sighted rich European capitalists. What I am saying is: Population is a problem provided the status quo doesn't change The status quo just ain't changing. Not fast enough, anyway. In light of this the current state of human existence (and the systems which support it) could be reasonably described as a virus. Exponential growth at the cost of a host? Prove me wrong. Solutions? Fucking sea change and a total shift in the way we occupy the planet. We're not over crowding we're over producing (and over consuming). What's eco-fascist about that, and if you don't agree, please let me know. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nouvellalia@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago Yeah, overpopulation is really easy to handle and doesn't require violence. Give kids a genuine education that they can continue into adulthood, and access to birth control and reproductive healthcare, and bam, population growth is fixed. The population problem is intentionally caused by the epstein class, so they can have abundant, desperate, cheap labor. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ALiteralCabbage@feddit.uk 1 point 2 hours ago Define ecofascism then, because its easy to just fuck around and shit on an opinion without providing an alternative. I'm not saying we need eugenics or a cull., and I'm certainly not blaming the global south for existing in a world that was driven by short sighted rich European capitalists. What I am saying is: Population is a problem provided the status quo doesn't change The status quo just ain't changing. Not fast enough, anyway. In light of this the current state of human existence (and the systems which support it) could be reasonably described as a virus. Exponential growth at the cost of a host? Prove me wrong. Solutions? Fucking sea change and a total shift in the way we occupy the planet. We're not over crowding we're over producing (and over consuming). What's eco-fascist about that, and if you don't agree, please let me know. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nouvellalia@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago Yeah, overpopulation is really easy to handle and doesn't require violence. Give kids a genuine education that they can continue into adulthood, and access to birth control and reproductive healthcare, and bam, population growth is fixed. The population problem is intentionally caused by the epstein class, so they can have abundant, desperate, cheap labor. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 47 points 1 day ago (20 children) If I could snap my fingers and all the world's billionaires disappear I would, or oil refineries. Not people though. Humans aren't the virus. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] jlow@slrpnk.net 2 points 6 hours ago (1 child) Snap for all the cars to disappear! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] i_am_hiding@aussie.zone 5 points 5 hours ago (1 child) No. People would starve to death. Cars are necessary. Not everyone lives in the CBD of the capital city. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FundMECFS@piefed.zip 3 points 4 hours ago (1 child) Cars are not inherently necessary. But we built around them and made them necessary. That can change. We control how we build and what assumptions we make. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jlow@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 hour ago Yep, cars are not necessary (esp what the vast majority does: one person in a car build for four or more). Public and freight transport would totally work. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (19 replies)
[–] jlow@slrpnk.net 2 points 6 hours ago (1 child) Snap for all the cars to disappear! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] i_am_hiding@aussie.zone 5 points 5 hours ago (1 child) No. People would starve to death. Cars are necessary. Not everyone lives in the CBD of the capital city. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FundMECFS@piefed.zip 3 points 4 hours ago (1 child) Cars are not inherently necessary. But we built around them and made them necessary. That can change. We control how we build and what assumptions we make. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jlow@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 hour ago Yep, cars are not necessary (esp what the vast majority does: one person in a car build for four or more). Public and freight transport would totally work. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] i_am_hiding@aussie.zone 5 points 5 hours ago (1 child) No. People would starve to death. Cars are necessary. Not everyone lives in the CBD of the capital city. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FundMECFS@piefed.zip 3 points 4 hours ago (1 child) Cars are not inherently necessary. But we built around them and made them necessary. That can change. We control how we build and what assumptions we make. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jlow@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 hour ago Yep, cars are not necessary (esp what the vast majority does: one person in a car build for four or more). Public and freight transport would totally work. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FundMECFS@piefed.zip 3 points 4 hours ago (1 child) Cars are not inherently necessary. But we built around them and made them necessary. That can change. We control how we build and what assumptions we make. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jlow@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 hour ago Yep, cars are not necessary (esp what the vast majority does: one person in a car build for four or more). Public and freight transport would totally work. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jlow@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 hour ago Yep, cars are not necessary (esp what the vast majority does: one person in a car build for four or more). Public and freight transport would totally work. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child) If I could snap my fingers and have people wake up from the capitalist propaganda they've been force-fed their whole lives, I would. Population is not the issue, it's a deflection. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 child) Population is definitely an issue there’s no many problem that wouldn’t be instantly solved by going down to a hundred million people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 child) If your only problem is that you want more resources available for yourself, I can see how you'd come to that conclusion, but you're wrong. It wouldn't solve the underlying problems, and in fact it would create a whole set of new ones. Modern civilization depends heavily on economies of scale, and your magic finger snap does nothing to change how resources are produced, distributed, or consumed. You're also assuming that every human consumes resources at roughly the same rate. They don't. Not even close. A tiny fraction of humanity consumes vastly more resources than billions of other people. Your finger snap doesn't address that inequality at all. The same people and systems that concentrate resources now would simply have an even larger pool of resources to hoover up afterward. Then what? Snap your fingers again? And follow the logic to its conclusion. If reducing humanity to 100 million "solves" problems because fewer people are consuming resources and competing for them, then 1 million should be even better. Five thousand better still. Ultimately, zero humans means zero poverty, zero war, zero homelessness, zero human carbon emissions, and zero human suffering. Problem solved! Except obviously it isn't, because eliminating the people who experience a problem is not the same thing as solving the problem for those people. We don't have billions of people living in poverty because there simply isn't enough stuff on Earth to go around. We have enormous disparities in who controls resources and who gets to consume them. Fantasizing about eliminating most of humanity while leaving that system completely intact makes you a stooge for the oligarchs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -4 points 1 day ago (1 child) But even with these slower rates of growth, our population is already far above the sustainable carrying capacity given by Bradshaw and team's models. The gap between their optimum number of 2.5 billion and our current population size of 8.3 billion may help explain the problems with overconsumption our species currently faces. Earth's Population Has Surpassed The Planet's Capacity, Study Suggests permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 6 points 23 hours ago (1 child) Did you actually read what you provided? It's really not the defense of your point that you are making it out to be. Lead author, Corey Bradshaw (Who also co-authored Human Population Reduction is Not a Quick Fix for Environmental Problems), argues that our current consumption system is unsustainable. I couldn't agree more! The 2.5 billion figure cited within is not some immutable physical limit on the number of human bodies Earth can contain. The authors explicitly acknowledge that a "sustainable" population depends on things like standard of living, economics, social conditions, and resource consumption. Their ecological-footprint estimate of 2.35 billion specifically assumes today's average material standard of living and current consumption distribution, including the enormous consumption of the wealthiest people. You're taking a model of how many people our planet can sustainably support under particular socioeconomic and consumption conditions and treating it as evidence that the people themselves are the fundamental problem. That's not what the evidence shows, though. Not even the evidence you yourself brought to the table, sorry! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -2 points 23 hours ago (1 child) It's a number of people that the planet can carry based on reality. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago* (1 child) Reality is malleable. Sure, the current circumstances of how resources are divided and used is reality. The current population is reality. We are both discussing ways in which our reality can be transformed to the benefit of all. Your suggested path involves the death of billions of people, while my suggested path involves some people having slightly less exorbitant lifestyles. Your suggested path is not only extreme, but it wouldn't even work according to the very scholars you are citing. THAT is reality. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -2 points 21 hours ago (1 child) Sounds good enjoy your fairy tale take on the world I'll stick with the reality we're living in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago (1 child) The reality of ignoring all evidence to validate wishing you could kill most people for no reason? And I'm the one living in a fairy tale? Okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -3 points 21 hours ago (1 child) All evidence points to the fact we have more people on this planet than the planet can sustainably carry. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago All evidence aside from the evidence you supplied that said the opposite? I mean really, ALL evidence? All of it? But you can supply none? But it's ALL the evidence? Right. You are literally just saying things. You could fit every single human being on earth into one metropolitan area. It's our behavior that is unsustainable, not our population. Go lick a boot. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 child) Population is definitely an issue there’s no many problem that wouldn’t be instantly solved by going down to a hundred million people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 child) If your only problem is that you want more resources available for yourself, I can see how you'd come to that conclusion, but you're wrong. It wouldn't solve the underlying problems, and in fact it would create a whole set of new ones. Modern civilization depends heavily on economies of scale, and your magic finger snap does nothing to change how resources are produced, distributed, or consumed. You're also assuming that every human consumes resources at roughly the same rate. They don't. Not even close. A tiny fraction of humanity consumes vastly more resources than billions of other people. Your finger snap doesn't address that inequality at all. The same people and systems that concentrate resources now would simply have an even larger pool of resources to hoover up afterward. Then what? Snap your fingers again? And follow the logic to its conclusion. If reducing humanity to 100 million "solves" problems because fewer people are consuming resources and competing for them, then 1 million should be even better. Five thousand better still. Ultimately, zero humans means zero poverty, zero war, zero homelessness, zero human carbon emissions, and zero human suffering. Problem solved! Except obviously it isn't, because eliminating the people who experience a problem is not the same thing as solving the problem for those people. We don't have billions of people living in poverty because there simply isn't enough stuff on Earth to go around. We have enormous disparities in who controls resources and who gets to consume them. Fantasizing about eliminating most of humanity while leaving that system completely intact makes you a stooge for the oligarchs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -4 points 1 day ago (1 child) But even with these slower rates of growth, our population is already far above the sustainable carrying capacity given by Bradshaw and team's models. The gap between their optimum number of 2.5 billion and our current population size of 8.3 billion may help explain the problems with overconsumption our species currently faces. Earth's Population Has Surpassed The Planet's Capacity, Study Suggests permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 6 points 23 hours ago (1 child) Did you actually read what you provided? It's really not the defense of your point that you are making it out to be. Lead author, Corey Bradshaw (Who also co-authored Human Population Reduction is Not a Quick Fix for Environmental Problems), argues that our current consumption system is unsustainable. I couldn't agree more! The 2.5 billion figure cited within is not some immutable physical limit on the number of human bodies Earth can contain. The authors explicitly acknowledge that a "sustainable" population depends on things like standard of living, economics, social conditions, and resource consumption. Their ecological-footprint estimate of 2.35 billion specifically assumes today's average material standard of living and current consumption distribution, including the enormous consumption of the wealthiest people. You're taking a model of how many people our planet can sustainably support under particular socioeconomic and consumption conditions and treating it as evidence that the people themselves are the fundamental problem. That's not what the evidence shows, though. Not even the evidence you yourself brought to the table, sorry! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -2 points 23 hours ago (1 child) It's a number of people that the planet can carry based on reality. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago* (1 child) Reality is malleable. Sure, the current circumstances of how resources are divided and used is reality. The current population is reality. We are both discussing ways in which our reality can be transformed to the benefit of all. Your suggested path involves the death of billions of people, while my suggested path involves some people having slightly less exorbitant lifestyles. Your suggested path is not only extreme, but it wouldn't even work according to the very scholars you are citing. THAT is reality. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -2 points 21 hours ago (1 child) Sounds good enjoy your fairy tale take on the world I'll stick with the reality we're living in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago (1 child) The reality of ignoring all evidence to validate wishing you could kill most people for no reason? And I'm the one living in a fairy tale? Okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -3 points 21 hours ago (1 child) All evidence points to the fact we have more people on this planet than the planet can sustainably carry. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago All evidence aside from the evidence you supplied that said the opposite? I mean really, ALL evidence? All of it? But you can supply none? But it's ALL the evidence? Right. You are literally just saying things. You could fit every single human being on earth into one metropolitan area. It's our behavior that is unsustainable, not our population. Go lick a boot. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 child) If your only problem is that you want more resources available for yourself, I can see how you'd come to that conclusion, but you're wrong. It wouldn't solve the underlying problems, and in fact it would create a whole set of new ones. Modern civilization depends heavily on economies of scale, and your magic finger snap does nothing to change how resources are produced, distributed, or consumed. You're also assuming that every human consumes resources at roughly the same rate. They don't. Not even close. A tiny fraction of humanity consumes vastly more resources than billions of other people. Your finger snap doesn't address that inequality at all. The same people and systems that concentrate resources now would simply have an even larger pool of resources to hoover up afterward. Then what? Snap your fingers again? And follow the logic to its conclusion. If reducing humanity to 100 million "solves" problems because fewer people are consuming resources and competing for them, then 1 million should be even better. Five thousand better still. Ultimately, zero humans means zero poverty, zero war, zero homelessness, zero human carbon emissions, and zero human suffering. Problem solved! Except obviously it isn't, because eliminating the people who experience a problem is not the same thing as solving the problem for those people. We don't have billions of people living in poverty because there simply isn't enough stuff on Earth to go around. We have enormous disparities in who controls resources and who gets to consume them. Fantasizing about eliminating most of humanity while leaving that system completely intact makes you a stooge for the oligarchs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -4 points 1 day ago (1 child) But even with these slower rates of growth, our population is already far above the sustainable carrying capacity given by Bradshaw and team's models. The gap between their optimum number of 2.5 billion and our current population size of 8.3 billion may help explain the problems with overconsumption our species currently faces. Earth's Population Has Surpassed The Planet's Capacity, Study Suggests permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 6 points 23 hours ago (1 child) Did you actually read what you provided? It's really not the defense of your point that you are making it out to be. Lead author, Corey Bradshaw (Who also co-authored Human Population Reduction is Not a Quick Fix for Environmental Problems), argues that our current consumption system is unsustainable. I couldn't agree more! The 2.5 billion figure cited within is not some immutable physical limit on the number of human bodies Earth can contain. The authors explicitly acknowledge that a "sustainable" population depends on things like standard of living, economics, social conditions, and resource consumption. Their ecological-footprint estimate of 2.35 billion specifically assumes today's average material standard of living and current consumption distribution, including the enormous consumption of the wealthiest people. You're taking a model of how many people our planet can sustainably support under particular socioeconomic and consumption conditions and treating it as evidence that the people themselves are the fundamental problem. That's not what the evidence shows, though. Not even the evidence you yourself brought to the table, sorry! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -2 points 23 hours ago (1 child) It's a number of people that the planet can carry based on reality. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago* (1 child) Reality is malleable. Sure, the current circumstances of how resources are divided and used is reality. The current population is reality. We are both discussing ways in which our reality can be transformed to the benefit of all. Your suggested path involves the death of billions of people, while my suggested path involves some people having slightly less exorbitant lifestyles. Your suggested path is not only extreme, but it wouldn't even work according to the very scholars you are citing. THAT is reality. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -2 points 21 hours ago (1 child) Sounds good enjoy your fairy tale take on the world I'll stick with the reality we're living in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago (1 child) The reality of ignoring all evidence to validate wishing you could kill most people for no reason? And I'm the one living in a fairy tale? Okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -3 points 21 hours ago (1 child) All evidence points to the fact we have more people on this planet than the planet can sustainably carry. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago All evidence aside from the evidence you supplied that said the opposite? I mean really, ALL evidence? All of it? But you can supply none? But it's ALL the evidence? Right. You are literally just saying things. You could fit every single human being on earth into one metropolitan area. It's our behavior that is unsustainable, not our population. Go lick a boot. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -4 points 1 day ago (1 child) But even with these slower rates of growth, our population is already far above the sustainable carrying capacity given by Bradshaw and team's models. The gap between their optimum number of 2.5 billion and our current population size of 8.3 billion may help explain the problems with overconsumption our species currently faces. Earth's Population Has Surpassed The Planet's Capacity, Study Suggests permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 6 points 23 hours ago (1 child) Did you actually read what you provided? It's really not the defense of your point that you are making it out to be. Lead author, Corey Bradshaw (Who also co-authored Human Population Reduction is Not a Quick Fix for Environmental Problems), argues that our current consumption system is unsustainable. I couldn't agree more! The 2.5 billion figure cited within is not some immutable physical limit on the number of human bodies Earth can contain. The authors explicitly acknowledge that a "sustainable" population depends on things like standard of living, economics, social conditions, and resource consumption. Their ecological-footprint estimate of 2.35 billion specifically assumes today's average material standard of living and current consumption distribution, including the enormous consumption of the wealthiest people. You're taking a model of how many people our planet can sustainably support under particular socioeconomic and consumption conditions and treating it as evidence that the people themselves are the fundamental problem. That's not what the evidence shows, though. Not even the evidence you yourself brought to the table, sorry! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -2 points 23 hours ago (1 child) It's a number of people that the planet can carry based on reality. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago* (1 child) Reality is malleable. Sure, the current circumstances of how resources are divided and used is reality. The current population is reality. We are both discussing ways in which our reality can be transformed to the benefit of all. Your suggested path involves the death of billions of people, while my suggested path involves some people having slightly less exorbitant lifestyles. Your suggested path is not only extreme, but it wouldn't even work according to the very scholars you are citing. THAT is reality. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -2 points 21 hours ago (1 child) Sounds good enjoy your fairy tale take on the world I'll stick with the reality we're living in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago (1 child) The reality of ignoring all evidence to validate wishing you could kill most people for no reason? And I'm the one living in a fairy tale? Okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -3 points 21 hours ago (1 child) All evidence points to the fact we have more people on this planet than the planet can sustainably carry. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago All evidence aside from the evidence you supplied that said the opposite? I mean really, ALL evidence? All of it? But you can supply none? But it's ALL the evidence? Right. You are literally just saying things. You could fit every single human being on earth into one metropolitan area. It's our behavior that is unsustainable, not our population. Go lick a boot. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 6 points 23 hours ago (1 child) Did you actually read what you provided? It's really not the defense of your point that you are making it out to be. Lead author, Corey Bradshaw (Who also co-authored Human Population Reduction is Not a Quick Fix for Environmental Problems), argues that our current consumption system is unsustainable. I couldn't agree more! The 2.5 billion figure cited within is not some immutable physical limit on the number of human bodies Earth can contain. The authors explicitly acknowledge that a "sustainable" population depends on things like standard of living, economics, social conditions, and resource consumption. Their ecological-footprint estimate of 2.35 billion specifically assumes today's average material standard of living and current consumption distribution, including the enormous consumption of the wealthiest people. You're taking a model of how many people our planet can sustainably support under particular socioeconomic and consumption conditions and treating it as evidence that the people themselves are the fundamental problem. That's not what the evidence shows, though. Not even the evidence you yourself brought to the table, sorry! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -2 points 23 hours ago (1 child) It's a number of people that the planet can carry based on reality. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago* (1 child) Reality is malleable. Sure, the current circumstances of how resources are divided and used is reality. The current population is reality. We are both discussing ways in which our reality can be transformed to the benefit of all. Your suggested path involves the death of billions of people, while my suggested path involves some people having slightly less exorbitant lifestyles. Your suggested path is not only extreme, but it wouldn't even work according to the very scholars you are citing. THAT is reality. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -2 points 21 hours ago (1 child) Sounds good enjoy your fairy tale take on the world I'll stick with the reality we're living in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago (1 child) The reality of ignoring all evidence to validate wishing you could kill most people for no reason? And I'm the one living in a fairy tale? Okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -3 points 21 hours ago (1 child) All evidence points to the fact we have more people on this planet than the planet can sustainably carry. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago All evidence aside from the evidence you supplied that said the opposite? I mean really, ALL evidence? All of it? But you can supply none? But it's ALL the evidence? Right. You are literally just saying things. You could fit every single human being on earth into one metropolitan area. It's our behavior that is unsustainable, not our population. Go lick a boot. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -2 points 23 hours ago (1 child) It's a number of people that the planet can carry based on reality. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago* (1 child) Reality is malleable. Sure, the current circumstances of how resources are divided and used is reality. The current population is reality. We are both discussing ways in which our reality can be transformed to the benefit of all. Your suggested path involves the death of billions of people, while my suggested path involves some people having slightly less exorbitant lifestyles. Your suggested path is not only extreme, but it wouldn't even work according to the very scholars you are citing. THAT is reality. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -2 points 21 hours ago (1 child) Sounds good enjoy your fairy tale take on the world I'll stick with the reality we're living in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago (1 child) The reality of ignoring all evidence to validate wishing you could kill most people for no reason? And I'm the one living in a fairy tale? Okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -3 points 21 hours ago (1 child) All evidence points to the fact we have more people on this planet than the planet can sustainably carry. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago All evidence aside from the evidence you supplied that said the opposite? I mean really, ALL evidence? All of it? But you can supply none? But it's ALL the evidence? Right. You are literally just saying things. You could fit every single human being on earth into one metropolitan area. It's our behavior that is unsustainable, not our population. Go lick a boot. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago* (1 child) Reality is malleable. Sure, the current circumstances of how resources are divided and used is reality. The current population is reality. We are both discussing ways in which our reality can be transformed to the benefit of all. Your suggested path involves the death of billions of people, while my suggested path involves some people having slightly less exorbitant lifestyles. Your suggested path is not only extreme, but it wouldn't even work according to the very scholars you are citing. THAT is reality. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -2 points 21 hours ago (1 child) Sounds good enjoy your fairy tale take on the world I'll stick with the reality we're living in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago (1 child) The reality of ignoring all evidence to validate wishing you could kill most people for no reason? And I'm the one living in a fairy tale? Okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -3 points 21 hours ago (1 child) All evidence points to the fact we have more people on this planet than the planet can sustainably carry. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago All evidence aside from the evidence you supplied that said the opposite? I mean really, ALL evidence? All of it? But you can supply none? But it's ALL the evidence? Right. You are literally just saying things. You could fit every single human being on earth into one metropolitan area. It's our behavior that is unsustainable, not our population. Go lick a boot. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -2 points 21 hours ago (1 child) Sounds good enjoy your fairy tale take on the world I'll stick with the reality we're living in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago (1 child) The reality of ignoring all evidence to validate wishing you could kill most people for no reason? And I'm the one living in a fairy tale? Okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -3 points 21 hours ago (1 child) All evidence points to the fact we have more people on this planet than the planet can sustainably carry. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago All evidence aside from the evidence you supplied that said the opposite? I mean really, ALL evidence? All of it? But you can supply none? But it's ALL the evidence? Right. You are literally just saying things. You could fit every single human being on earth into one metropolitan area. It's our behavior that is unsustainable, not our population. Go lick a boot. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago (1 child) The reality of ignoring all evidence to validate wishing you could kill most people for no reason? And I'm the one living in a fairy tale? Okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -3 points 21 hours ago (1 child) All evidence points to the fact we have more people on this planet than the planet can sustainably carry. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago All evidence aside from the evidence you supplied that said the opposite? I mean really, ALL evidence? All of it? But you can supply none? But it's ALL the evidence? Right. You are literally just saying things. You could fit every single human being on earth into one metropolitan area. It's our behavior that is unsustainable, not our population. Go lick a boot. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -3 points 21 hours ago (1 child) All evidence points to the fact we have more people on this planet than the planet can sustainably carry. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago All evidence aside from the evidence you supplied that said the opposite? I mean really, ALL evidence? All of it? But you can supply none? But it's ALL the evidence? Right. You are literally just saying things. You could fit every single human being on earth into one metropolitan area. It's our behavior that is unsustainable, not our population. Go lick a boot. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago All evidence aside from the evidence you supplied that said the opposite? I mean really, ALL evidence? All of it? But you can supply none? But it's ALL the evidence? Right. You are literally just saying things. You could fit every single human being on earth into one metropolitan area. It's our behavior that is unsustainable, not our population. Go lick a boot. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago (1 child) I was on Thanos' side the entire time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago I felt like this watching Black Panther. The "bad" guy wanted to give Wakanda's weapons to the oppressed and downtrodden people of the world, and I was like "yeah, sounds good." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago I felt like this watching Black Panther. The "bad" guy wanted to give Wakanda's weapons to the oppressed and downtrodden people of the world, and I was like "yeah, sounds good." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago *Starts dancing flamenco permalink fedilink source parent