Let’s be honest, things would flip after a bit of peace with few men, and women would start to violence each other, then the narrative would kick in that men would not have done that (whether it’s true or not).
Humans will never be happy, and always find reasons to hate each other.
Best to just reduce humans to a population of 800.000 and spread them out as much as possible. Just make everyone sterile, the problem will solve itself. If they can colonize Mars, or live on spaceships or something, that could work too for reducing the effective population.
That would make every single human invaluable, so they would have to treat each other far better. It would also be easier to pivot the population towards something better, and it would also make it easier for say, so species that is not a fuck up to take over. But we would have to somehow explicitly engineer that species to be almost angelic.
sneakypersimmon@lemmy.today 5 hours ago
I think you’re trolling and trying to make women who support this look sexist.
HalfSalesman@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
I’m not trolling, though perhaps I am being provocative.
That said, I would be unironically in favor of the policy I am proposing.
I’m also open to better systemic policy propositions.
sneakypersimmon@lemmy.today 4 hours ago
Population control and eugenics tend to be bad ideas.
I’m still convinced you’re here to make feminists and women who support safety measures for other women look sexist with your “provocative” views on men.
HalfSalesman@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
I mean to be honest I’m not in favor of “population control” but I am basically a soft anti-natalist. I think we should stop reproducing entirely.
As for eugenics, I never said things would be manipulated along racial/ethnic lines, and that’s typically the area of moral outrage when it comes to eugenics. And what with a few people in this very comment section pointing out that it’d be unacceptable to let white people say they’re “uncomfortable” or “feel unsafe” around black people… well…
Like, you are being inconsistent at that point. Is viewing men as intrinsically less safe and validating that with prejudicial filters on ride sharing against them acceptable or not? If its acceptable, then just… simply not having more men is just a win/win. No one gets hurt, they’re just not born. And its justified because you can point out that its literally acceptable to apply what amounts to an economic sanction of already living men, some of which rely on their income to live a life worth living or to even live at all, on the basis that they are just more dangerous. This idea is more harmful than what I am proposing. It will result in more suffering.
What you don’t like is the emotions you feel when I suggest an idea that seems alien to you and have to mentally compare it to a worse idea that sates bitter catharsis or validates your desire to insulate and segregate for the aim of emotional comfort.
My idea is not me framing “birthing fewer boys” from some emotional perspective of “We should do it because we hate boys.” I’m suggesting it because I legitimately believe it would be more humane than what we’re doing now with everything, let alone considering this ride share filter.
I’m here because I have no self control. I keep telling myself I’ll stop arguing on social media because it just makes me miserable but boredom at work just completely over takes my restraint. Why are you here?