How about raising VAT and killing all the poor?
Study reveals that humans are the main cause of human-caused environmental effects.
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.
Well, noone needs to get genocide, just stop making more
Oh you mean eugenics and reproductive control. Yea, also genocidal.
Jfc, I’m not castrating anyone, just asking nicely - consider not making more. Maybe 8 billion is plenty.
Cool. You can “say that”. But that doesn’t happen. People have kids.
Come up with one idea or policy that actually results in people having less children? Because that’s what the comment you replied to is saying. They are talking about the inevitable policies that come from the “just have less” ideas.
The idea is pointless if it just lives in your head. Would be great if everyone that read this comment gave me $1. But no one’s gonna do that unless I actually had a reason for them to. The reasons to place on people to have less children either don’t work or are human rights violations.
You sound like the dumb “smart guy” that says “we could have world peace if everyone just smoked weed everyday”.
You don’t solve something by coming up with a solution with no means of reaching it. Hell, it’s not really a solution, it’s just a conclusion. It’s why the “population problem” is so good for propaganda. It redirects the problem and distracts stupid people that haven’t actually thought through how that would work.
The plan here is women’s education and access to contraceptives. These 2 things very consistently cause a significant decline in fertility rates. To the point that leaders across the globe are shitting their pants over it.
Consider that ~50% of births globally are from unplanned pregnancies. Prevention of those can do a lot of heavy lifting.
Probably need to direct this to the people in India and china who hold 1/4 of the worlds population
Dude, chill.
There is nuance between eugenics and forced births.
Capitalism is what paid for them to do the study in the first place.
Absolutely! Famously non capitalist countries have no capability of funding studies. Nope. Hell, we’d never have gotten the first satellite or first person into space without capitalism! Everything good comes from capitalism! And everything bad, yeah, it’s socialism. And if it’s REALLY bad, it’s communism.
I was under the impression non capitalist countries never existed after its invention. At least, thats what I’m told by communists any time I criticize a “communist” country.
Communism is, by definition, “a classless, moneyless, stateless society”.
When people say “no communist countries have existed” this is what they mean. Because that’s not ever been achieved.
There are countries that are run by communist parties (China). But these are not countries that have “obtained Communism”. You are confused because you never looked up the definition of a communist society.
For example, China is a country run by the Chinese Communist Party under a state structure of Socialism (with Chinese characteristics).
Since you don’t understand basic definitions I doubt that you’re criticisms of “communist countries” were very insightful.
What do you mean? I’m pretty dumb so typing slowly would help. If good things happen it can be attributed to communist leadership but if bad things happen its still capitalisms fault? Cuz that’s what it sounds like.
Economist Richard Wolff has a lot of material on YouTube that explains the differences between Capitalism and Socialism as a mode of production, in addition to how this relates to how China’s economy differs from those like America. Assuming you are genuinely interested in learning more
I read one of his books when I was in college. It had to have been “Democracy at Work”, based on the dates of his publications. I strongly believe he frames idealistic, unrealistic arguments. Each premise I’ve heard presented also depends solely on all members of society being highly altruistic, especially those given the discretion to regulate. He also tends to completely ignore the consistant abuse of power and individual consequence associated with every iteration of attempted communism. Including current regimes. Granted, you could argue that’s an issue with hierarchical structures. Something I think must exist to an extent. I’m not a total free market guy at all. I think a balance of socialist legislature and open market would lead to the best quality of life for the largest amount of humans. Specifically, comprehensive healthcare, housing, education and access to clean food and water. All should be available at little to no cost. I don’t see that being a pie in the sky impossiblity, like trying to force implementation of communism. I found far more agreeable information in “Road to Serfdom” by Hayek. It’s also completely possible for communist groups to exist within capitalist states. The opposite is not possible. Individual choice isn’t a luxury afforded.
Lol, what do you think indiscriminate use of resources is? That’s literally capitalism!
Unless you’re an ecofascist neonazi, in which case the same phrase gets interpreted as “use of resources by the wrong kind of people”.
According to me, the wrong kind of people are the chuds, billionaires, the tech broligarchs and Neo Nazis and maga chuds and other far right extremists
So yeah, maybe we should kill those people
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.
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”.
They will get less labor whether they want it or not. They are banking on being able to fill it in with AI.
Not at all. AI is primarily a tool for domestic surveillance and war. AI cannot produce surplus value to be extracted for profit. They aren’t trying to replace workers with AI. At least not in the long term.
Maybe it’s a fantasy but if they could replace humans with machines that never bargained and went on holiday, they would in a heartbeat. And that’s what they want to do. Maybe they will fail, maybe the technology will develop. It can do many things today that it couldn’t so a few years ago. It’s already solved more difficult mathematical proofs than any human alive today for example.
Yeah, that’s not true. The math proofs it has solved are not “more difficult than any solved by a living person”. Many of the proofs AI has solved are corner case conditions that are not being actively worked on by mathematicians. In a trivial example. Image a problem like:
x = n + 25AI says, hey, let’s assume n=3.
AI solved the proof that
3 + 25 = 28.Then we get an article posted about how AI solved the impossible problem of
n + 25Now, it can be helpful to have these less general proofs solved. It can help mathematicians in creating a more general proof (what they are usually focused on).
But, as far as I’m aware, these are most of the contributions of AI so far in the field of mathematics. You’re falling for the hype around it. It’s mostly filling in gaps for corner cases that are not actively being worked on.
Which makes sense. Because it’s just a text generation algorithm that predicts the most likely characters. It’s using training data for the
n = 3case that it learned from another already solved problem and then injecting it into the unsolved problem. Sometimes is spits out something that makes sense, a human being has to verify it, and then a corner case for mathematical proof is “solved”.It’s not capable of thinking or rationalizing to anything new. It is filling in gaps in a field of research that is not primarily focused on “gap filling”.
It’s why it’s “having success” in Math but not Physics. Mathematicians focus on general proofs that apply under all conditions. So, the field inevitably has a lot of problems that could be solved by a lot of brute force for specific conditions.
In Physics, scientist are constantly trying to “fill gaps”. They work with real world measurements and observations. Any new “gap” is constantly being tested. AI has no gaps to fill with its brute force way of “thinking”. And it’s completely incapable of coming up with theories or hypothesis on a level a human does.
This is why it’s not solving ground breaking mathematics proofs and why it is mostly useless in replacing humans in the scientific process. Because it isn’t actually thinking.
Sorry, rant. But this is something that bothers me and you hit a nerve.
Sorry the wording of that phrase was too ambiguous. I meant it had solved more proofs than any human had in their lifetime, and those were at least difficult enough to stump humans for years or decades. I didn’t mean that they were more difficult than proofs that humans had solved, simply that the AI had solved a higher quantity of them, and that, on average, they would be considered difficult. At least difficult enough to stump humans for a pretty good stretch of time.
Actually, we’d only need to lose 50 maybe 100 people. Total.
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.
The money gets split when it goes to the heirs. Just keep eliminating the rich until the money inherited is diluted enough its not significant.
The powers don’t allow reforms. Removal of powers and a rebuild with safeguards is needed
You say you want a revolution
We-ell you kno-o-ow
We all wanna save the world
You tell me it’s the institutions
We-ell you kno-o-ow
We all wanna save the wo-or-r-ld
But when you talk about destuction
Don’t you know that you can count me out
It’s theseus’ ship. is it destruction is kind of a dilemma
I would remind you that this comment chain began with someone suggesting that we’d “only need to lose 50 maybe 100 people”. I’m under no illusions as to what was meant by that, and I’m saying that generally speaking, that sort of “solution” doesn’t improve things. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”, etc.
Force is sometimes necessary, yes, but generally speaking, the people who suggest it as a first resort before ever having gotten personally involved in attempts at other solutions, are the people who should be kept very far away from the real decision making.
No one suggested it first. We’ve been working for decades through peaceful measures. Hell, we’re still doing it now and they are responding with marking our organizations as “domestic terrorist” with both parties spending every ounce of AIPAC funds to stop us.
Those that make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. We are right on that edge right now. We don’t make the choice to use violence. They do.
That’s a lot of “we” and “our”. Are you a member of a community organization that’s working to peacefully improve things? Have you or someone you personally know been prosecuted as a terrorist for peaceful activism?
Before trying Michael Collins IRA stuff, you should at least attempt CS Parnell Land League stuff. Especially since you need a large percentage of the community to have already gotten organized before either form of action can hope to succeed, and that organization is easier to accomplish when you’re not asking people to kill people. How many of your neighbors are you on a first name basis with? If you can’t organize a community boycott then you could never hope to organize a revolution.
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.
The wealth redistribution wouldn’t solve this particular problem though. If the ecological footprint of a quadrillionaire’s wealth is giant spaceships, mega yachts, private jets, data centers and fuel for all of it then it doesn’t matter who owns them. The ecological damage will always happen unless that wealth is disposed of or massively downcycled.
also - rich people being scared of the masses and consequences will likely contribute to them well-behaving
they will flee to argentina.
I dunno. Let’s try the first plan and see how it goes first.
Better to say that everyone earning hundred times minimum wage gets eliminated.
Yeah, I agree. We need to kill the chuds and the tech broligarchs and the billionaires as well
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.
I hope when it’s my turn they do it quickly.
So you’re saying reducing the proliferation of a virus can help the organic body it’s attacking?
That’s fascinating.
Great, start with yourself then.
Just waiting for Theil or some other tech bro to start a company called “Vault-Tec”.
I fully expect project code name Thanos.
Damn I hate them but the brand response was so real for me my first instinct was wow that’d be fucking cool. (It wouldn’t be)
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.
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.
Can I get a snap?
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.
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.
It would actually.
They don’t use nearly as much ressources as half the population. Come on now.
You can go with them if you want to defend them so much
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.
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.
