Because relentless bad news breeds cynicism, which is demoralizing and self-defeating. In this community there’s already plenty of that to go round. The full story is slightly more complex.
Because relentless bad news breeds cynicism, which is demoralizing and self-defeating. In this community there’s already plenty of that to go round. The full story is slightly more complex.
To be clear, the problem is a factor of total population and per-capita economic activity. So reducing either will logically mitigate the problem. (The X factor being technology.)
You seem to be advocating global genocide so your take is rightly unpopular.
But clearly population is a major part of this problem. The sheer figure for human biomass is totally unsustainable for any kind of healthy global ecosystem. Personally I find it irritating that there are so many who deny these inconvenient facts.
That’s not actually genocide. I suggest it be random.
Okay Thanos, that’s enough for today. But you may be excited to know that birth rates across the globe are falling to the point that a population decline is in the works.
Thanos was right, but he was weak. Half? That only buys time.
It does make me happy the population is going down, but it will go back up again. We have too many people for the resources of our planet, and the way we use those resources. We need to give back large amounts to Mother Earth.
I dunno man, I bet the current population trajectory plus improvements in efficiency/ conservation with a lot less capitalism will likely be sufficient. 90% just seems like a lot more work than necessary.
Prior to the Industrial Revolution the population hovered around 1 billion give or take a few hundred million. Let’s go back there.
The planet could handle more with modern tech and conservation practices.
That’s never gonna happen