- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/50324858
You must log in or # to comment.
Pretty sure we would he fine without the richest 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.
Journalists? I don’t think so.
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.
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?
Sure. Just don’t eat them.
That’s junk food, and eating junk food is bad. Instead, compost and eat the veggies
I guess so yes yes
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?
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
That’s why they’re not stopping global warming.
Trump: “Hold my Diet Coke!”
Scientists: “no not like that!”
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?
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.
