Get the population downd to around 35,000 and we can all go to the superbowl. 24 of us even get to play!
Can I get a snap?
Oh yeah? Which half? WHICH HALF MOTHERFUCKER?!?💢🪿🔪
Everyones half
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.
By 2200, if you read the article. So basically have less children.
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.
So basically have less children.
thanos was right.
Oh snap!
Funny how they leave out that taking just 1% of the wealthiest for a nice dirt nap would help more
It wouldn’t though.
The article suggest halving the global population by 2200. So not some nuclear war or disease killing half of humans basically over night. So more Japan and less nuclear war.
japanese made several series, scenarios over overpopulation. blue gender, evangelion,etc.
Removed by mod
They don’t use nearly as much ressources as half the population. Come on now.
Removed by mod
I’m not defending them. They are horrible and should be guillotined.
But it’s disingenuous to think that reducing our population by half wouldn’t have a greater impact.
Feel free to provide sources to prove me wrong.
Richest one percent are responsible for same level of climate warming as the 5 billion poorest people so yeah it would.
Right, but we’re not talking about the poorest half here.
Population is declining in Japan, Korea, Europe and North America. That’s not the poorest half by a long shot.
Whats funny is that is about the population where if we did everything perfectly and the earth was not so stressed would be possibly sustainable. Assumine we want to live a modern type experience. We have so damaged the world since then though and even before and we obviously are not looking to do things in the most sustainable manner possible. So like we would need to go way below that for centuries for the earth to recover to its sorta healthiest state. What really cracks me up is people will be like. We produce more food than ever and we could have a much more massive population. Its like yeah if you don’t care about sustainability and the future.
I’d like to volunteer to start the list with about a hundred people we can get rid of right now.
The president of the United States of America beat you to it.
How about raising VAT and killing all the poor?
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.
True. Remove the US and we’re halfway there already.
The US is bad, but when you look at CO2 emissions it is still just at 12.7% of global emissions for example. Not even close to half. Obviously on a per capita bases that is still crazy high.
Your data does not include all the imported goods and land use required for Americans, but merely territorial emissions. US lifestyle is particularly wasteful, so yes, we’ll be halfway there counting also all the imported trash that no longer needs to be produced and shipped.
Even that does not change things too much. Not to half anyway, but just to 14% of global CO2 emissions.
4% of the world’s population and 14% of CO2 emissions. The fact that we’d need 5 Earths to host a world population living like Americans just shows that CO2 emissions don’t cover everything which defines planetary boundaries.
Written on iPhone
Capitalism called.
They said “no”… ☹️
I believe this is a very valid concern. They need the workers in pursuit of growth.
Also, I think it’s no coincidence that women’s rights are being revoked.
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!
Historically when people are desperate , die younger, they responded by having more children
Historically, that might be true, but that is because historically it made sense to have more children in order to eventually gather more food or earn more money. Birth rates are dropping all over the place. Even in countries like India with traditionally very high birth rates. We are entering into a post-ubundance world, resources like food and clean water are becoming increasingly scarce and increasingly expensive. It makes no sense having babies if you’re not sure you’re going to be able to feed them.
Historically, when birds struggle to find food they kick eggs out of their nests. Historically, when guinea pigs struggle to find food they eat their young.
So was this Elon who funded this study or Peter Thiel?
Study shows it’s actually the massive corporate conglomerates that do exponentially more damage to the Earth than the entire animal kingdom combined, humans included.
Reduce your carbon footprint is a Big Oil created PR campaign. It places the “climate crisis” blame on the individual consumer.
…we really needed a study to conclude that lol I thought that was just common sense.
Common sense is the least common of all senses
You still need someone to write it down.
Meanwhile, in my country, the US government gives tax credits for children. No kids? No tax credits.
