Comment on Trying to reverse climate change won’t save us, scientists warn
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
Most problems would simply not be a problem if we drastically reduce the human population. Which would not only avoid the issues caused by climate change but also would prevent further increases in pollution and CO2 emissions.
if we drastically reduce the human population. Which would not only avoid the issues caused by climate change but also would prevent further increases in pollution and CO2 emissions.
Ignoring the genocide-apologist trend, the pandemic did wonders to reduce global warming…, perhaps start taxing more the companies that force back-to-office when they could clearly keep most of their work force at home?
And, eliminate Euclidean zoning in the U.S., so that people can live near where they work, or work near where they live. (Not all of us can do it, or like working from home.)
Yup, mixed zoning would do wonders. Why we don’t do that is beyond me…
What genocide? Just sensible reproduction. There’s two options. 10 billion people living miserably like during the pandemic. Or maybe 1 billion people being able to live good lives.
So who should go? You?
I literally said just having less children.
And I’m totally ok to only having between one or zero children myself.
I’m pretty sure he said have less children, not start death camps.
What about 2 billion people living pretty good lives or 9 billion people living less-miserably? That’s at least two more options right there.
There are infinite options we start doing fractions! (Please don’t)
Yeah. Thanos should simply have made half of all living beings gay. Much less violent and this would probably also make future generations more likely to be gay too. So it‘ll probably habe a much more longlasting effect than killing 50% once.
Gayness saves lives. I’ve always said it!
floofloof@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
One difficulty with that is that the way we organize economies currently depends on having a working-age population that is large enough to support the non-working population. When you have far fewer workers than retired people you start having problems. I don’t know what the answer to that is, but it’s another instance of how any plan to seriously address climate change tends to require deep changes to how we run society.
WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
We already have far more people than necessary jobs. One person with modern trchnology can produce way, way more than one person could even just a century ago.
Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s not about necessary jobs, it’s about paying into social security / pensions.
WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
If the jobs aren’t necessary, then surely there’s a way to organize society without those jobs existing.
This is the fundamental argument behind universal basic income.
As to the question of how to fund stuff like pensions or UBI without everyone working, the answer is simply to tax those who are working more, especially those making huge amounts of money.
acchariya@lemmy.world 1 year ago
This is only a problem if production does not increase dramatically, as it has for the last century. The reason it feels like there are insufficient working people is because parasites siphon from the resource distribution between more and more productive workers and their non working counterparts
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
There is a lot of things wrong on how we organize the economy.
If we are going to change that we may as well change it good.