• Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    20 hours ago

    How about banning private jets first? And then stop subsidizing meat production? Then stop building cities around cars. Tax the production of plastic, to reduce the use of it.

  • PhilosoDOOM@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    21 hours ago

    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.

  • qevlarr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    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

    • daannii@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      No one says to kill people. We can easily do this by reducing birth rate.

      • qevlarr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        It will always be some kind of “them” who should do that, never the “us”. And what about rich people? Are they bound by the same rules or only in theory?

        • daannii@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          23 hours ago

          Well I don’t have kids so I’m already part of the solution. I’m already committed to being child free

          People already don’t want kids. Cause of capitalism and sexism.

          But it doesn’t hurt for people to have better access to contraceptives.

          Safe abortions.

          And to make adoption easier and more socially promoted.

          • qevlarr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            21 hours ago

            You probably don’t want children. For people who do, this is an enormous sacrifice I wouldn’t ask of anyone. Just because of the comfort and luxury of developed nations, other people are somehow the problem. And not to mention it opens the door to fascists with specific ideas to cull the population

            • daannii@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              13 hours ago

              When did I say we should restrict people from having kids. ?

              I offered other solutions to the problem.

              All of those solutions would be voluntary.

                • daannii@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  18 minutes ago

                  I think you don’t understand how social services work.

                  Making contraceptives more accessible does in fact reduce pregnancy . There is a ton of research on this.

                  Secondly, making adoption more socially acceptable and easier would encourage people to adopt.

                  Cultural ideas and misconceptions about children often make people discount this adoption both as an option for persons giving up baby and potential parents who could adopt.

  • Corvidae@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Meanwhile, in my country, the US government gives tax credits for children. No kids? No tax credits.

  • filister@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

  • acargitz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    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.

    • Olap@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      3 days ago

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

      • acargitz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

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

        • FoxtrotDeltaTango@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          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

  • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    So let’s extrapolate here. Getting rid of all humans would help the earth even more? Sounds about right.

    • nkat2112@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

  • Apocalypteroid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    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!

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Historically when people are desperate , die younger, they responded by having more children

      • Apocalypteroid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

  • Cornpop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

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

  • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    So you’re saying reducing the proliferation of a virus can help the organic body it’s attacking?

    That’s fascinating.

  • Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    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?