There was this book about a fertility reducing virus.
Dan Brown Inferno
Right, that one. Punchline was good.
Ecofascism.
How about we start with 1% and see what happens.
Then the systems that prop up that 1% continue on as if nothing happened, only people might be paid more evenly.
That’s it. Expecting a fundamental shift in how humanity/global society functions just because a comparitive handful of people die is just ridiculous.
But we won’t know for sure unless we try.
And of course if they are gone, they won’t be there to kick and scream like children against every step of progress.
Just the top 10000 would make a big difference already
Yes, let’s get rid of all trans people! /s /s
Thatd include most of us, though.
So you’re a multi millionaire, then?
Because I’m not, I can barely keep my head above water.
lmao you wish
Would it? What’s the net worth of the 80,000,000th richest person?
I’m safe by a wide margin, lol
Bottom of the top 1% globally have a net worth of $1 Million
TIL my family is well into the 1%… I don’t know how to feel about this.
Probably like you should advocate for global wealth inequality to be fixed, because it is absolutely shameful how much the ultrawealthy (capitalists, the 0.1%) take from the rest of us.
Like, if you’re in the “comfortable” group in America, you’re in the global 1%. Not because we’re doing so amazing, but because we are standing on top of the global south to get there.
I already do! I’m just… disappointed? I don’t know, it’s a mix of emotions that are so very angry at them, especially because they know I want to eat the rich.
Don’t be disappointed. That’s how you can be turned to the capitalist’s interests (yes, you belong with us. They’ll only hurt once they know. Class solidarity is paramount and we’re your class). You have no shame to bear, just a future to win.
PS: disregard if you do have a shame to bear. You gotta make sure you deal with the shit you’ve caused, first, then.
1 million is the net worth of the person. Assuming the wealthiest person of your family has 50% of the family’s wealth, the wealthiest person is still not in the top 1%.
I’m already on board you can stop trying to convince me
I have a net worth of about 10k… And a kidney I guess
A kidney? Psssh that’s small potatoes, how much RAM do you have?
Good point, 32Gb ddr5
deleted by creator
Doesn’t pass the sniff test, that’s almost the amount you need to be in Monaco’s top 1%. What’s your source?
https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1212/average-net-worth-of-the-1.aspx
Edit: I misread my source, its for the US
But the billionaires say we need MORE people so they have enough slaves of the colors they like!
It’s like dogs or ball pythons. They’re breeding selectively for the most desirable (to them) traits
Gotta have their favorite colorway
alternatively we could probably do with just reducing population by every CEO/comapany owner/shareholder/leader/whoever has control that refuses to become climate neutral
I like this idea, fuck tax incentives and carbon credits.
You get to neutral, you shut down your business, or you die. Your choice!
Thanos could have doubled the amount of space and resouces in the universe just as easily.
Just to get swallowed up by the same 1%?
It doesn’t matter one way or the other. Let’s say there’s a 1% growth rate of the population. That means you’re back to the original population in 70 years. Or doubled the resource use.
Since he has infinite power, he could have just made it so capacity constantly increases with population.
As you said, either way, it is a flawed premise.
Halve Life 4b confirmed.
Actually scientists in the 1970s were saying we need to do what we can to stabilize AT the 4 billion we were at then. See Limits to Growth and related studies. Cutting back now would help, but far more damage has been caused thanks to everything we’ve done including but not limited to population pressures than if we had heeded the warnings then and changed our direction. Some feedbacks are probably unstoppable now, no matter what we cut back.
That was primarily about the ability to provide food. The same scientists back then would have said we can’t even reach this population level while eating meat.
They were correct until we advanced agricultural science and found ways to more than double our food production.
Almost like its not a population problem, its a logistics problem.
Hey… How dare you bring logic into my eco-fashy views of “fixing” global suffering…
/s
(Also not making fun of the comment you responded to, but those that I have seen so much on reddit.)
Always has been.
It was about estimating the effect of continued world population growth on the world’s carrying capacity. It’s true that it did not have a lot of other variables at play, one important one being climate change. So if anything it was a best case of just a few known parameters, and not all the ones we’ve affected, many that wouldn’t even be known then. The model’s projections hold up well enough to have been a wake up call to do something drastically different. And we didn’t.
The fact that we now recognize a date each year where Earth has reached its carrying capacity and that date steadily gets earlier should suggest they were right too. Along with plenty of recent studies that say the absolute maximum is probably around 11 billion (so maybe you are a bit correct in saying our tech has given us a bit more room), but the optimum population from these studies is around 2.5 billion.
It does depend on both the minimum standard of living being used as well as how well resources are distributed. If we set almost everyone to the lowest levels now existing, perhaps we could get a few billion more. If it doesn’t spike the death rates and reduce birth rates.
Are these scientists with us on the room right now?
@[email protected] [citation required]
bro its a meme for light chuckles. nobody said that seriously.
@[email protected] let’s make memes of halving (decimating?) billionare population instead, then :)
