top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 89 points 1 month ago (28 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Lol, what do you think indiscriminate use of resources is? That's literally capitalism!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    Unless you're an ecofascist neonazi, in which case the same phrase gets interpreted as "use of resources by the wrong kind of people".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Genocide is unneeded. Population levels decline naturally as people urbanize. Just keep moving people into cities and industrializing farming and the problem will solve itself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Not with capitalism. Look at countries that do not take in many immigrants. South Korea and Japan are the results of what you're talking about.

    It's not just about industrialization. The exploitation of labor under capitalism still requires bodies to build its alter. The contradictions of capitalism are the primary problem. Value comes from labor. The profits of capital come from labor. They don't want "less people". They just want you to hate other workers and see them as "the problem".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Well, noone needs to get genocide, just stop making more

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (9 replies)
    [–] 36 points 1 month ago (26 children)

    Actually, we'd only need to lose 50 maybe 100 people. Total.

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 month ago (24 children)

    Nah, their fortunes would just go to their heirs and you'd still have the same problem with roughly the same number of people. The solution is a system of regulation and taxation that stops incentivizing the pursuit of profit over all else. For example, shareholders should not be able to profit when workers don't. Real estate owners should not be able to engage in cartel-like behavior, collaborating with each other to fix prices.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago* (5 children)

    It's easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine a world without capitalism.

    We don't give their heirs wealth my dude. It's a revolution. You round up the ruling class and seize their wealth and give it back to the masses that produced it.

    I know "that'll never happen". Said every person throughout history just before a revolution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (17 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 30 points 1 month ago* (6 children)

    Oh yeah? Which half? WHICH HALF MOTHERFUCKER?!?💢🪿🔪

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    By 2200, if you read the article. So basically have less children.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)
  • You cannot build a policy in such a way that population halving is distributed equitably unless you run a global forced sterilization lottery. Which has its own ethical problems. Maybe we could, idk, all agree to eat beef twice a month instead of every day and stop throwing shit fits over renewables and nuclear before economics and water scarcity makes fossil fuel plants impossible to support. Just a thought.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 1 month ago

    Study reveals that humans are the main cause of human-caused environmental effects.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Just waiting for Theil or some other tech bro to start a company called "Vault-Tec".

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 21 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    I'd like to volunteer to start the list with about a hundred people we can get rid of right now.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 21 points 1 month ago* (11 children)

    Funny how they leave out that taking just 1% of the wealthiest for a nice dirt nap would help more

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (11 replies)
    [–] 19 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 17 points 1 month ago (2 children)
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    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!

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 13 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Capitalism called.

    They said “no”… ☹️

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 12 points 1 month ago

    I am not particularly sympathetic, but there is a group that takes this quite seriously:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement

    The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT[A]) is an environmental movement that calls for all people to abstain from reproduction in order to cause the gradual voluntary extinction of humankind. VHEMT supports human extinction primarily because it would prevent environmental degradation.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago

    Can I get a snap?

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    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?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 10 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    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

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • load more comments (15 replies)
    [–] 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    …we really needed a study to conclude that lol I thought that was just common sense.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    I hope when it's my turn they do it quickly.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Great, start with yourself then.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›