God I fucking hate malthusians so much
Fake: The Daily
MailFail would never use the word “Scientists” when there’s a perfectly good “Boffins” lying around.How about we start with 1% and see what happens.
Just the top 10000 would make a big difference already
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.
The absence of their influence in Politics will make a massive difference.
The resources captured by the rich are probably a far smaller part of the problems they make than how they use the money they have to shape Politics and Public Opinion (via the Media they own), hence policies, hence the way our society and economy operates to maximized their own wealth.
Most Overconsumption and Negative Externality problems (both things that serve to maximized the profits that end up in the hands of Asset Owners and both the kind of thing that most damages the Environment) could be legislated away, but there is no will and there is no will because the politicians and the media are bought by those who benefit from things being as they are, and they are bought because those people have lots of money to buy them with.
Take the power to buy politicians and deciding what the press puts out away from the rich and all of a sudden profit-reducing pro-Environmental policies are not just politically acceptable but even demanded by public opinion, and given that said rich people would never give up on that without a massivelly destructive fight (literally Revolution), the safest and best option for about 99.9998% of people (8 billion minus 10,000 out of 8 billion) would probably be that a handful of rich people just die.
Yes, let’s get rid of all trans people! /s /s
Thatd include most of us, though.
Fine, let’s have a $50 million net worth cutoff as a start and we’ll keep lowering it until it works.
So you’re a multi millionaire, then?
Because I’m not, I can barely keep my head above water.
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
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
lmao you wish
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!
population x individual emissions = global emissions
Which number you want to change says a lot about your politics.
edit: given it’s the daily mail *spits on the ground* it’s very likely the researchers didn’t even say anything about which number to tune, the daily mail just added their special flavor to the headline. (probably also have a good idea which 4 billion has to go)
It is widely understood that Thanos was insane. Resources aren’t naturally limited and his campaign of slaughtering half the populations of planets didn’t ensure plenty for the masses. What he accomplished was to teach otherwise isolated civilizations that unless they put aside their differences and worked together they were vulnerable to devastating attack.
The only scarcity there is or ever has been is artificially created by either ineptitude or purposeful in order to prop up the wealthy who are given ownership of land and resources.
If he truly wish for a prosperous universe he would have snapped those fingers and installed the knowledge to create a post scarcity society on every planet with intelligent life in all beings. Because with all things the answer is EDUCATION NOT DEATH.
In the comics, he did it not to fight scarcity but because he was in love with the character Death and wanted to impress her … Or something like that.
By definition there is always scarcity
We as a species, at this very moment in time, have the physical and technological capability to feed every man woman and child on the planet, yet there’s somehow not enough food to feed all people and groceries are more expensive than they were 100 years ago. In terms of shear volume, you can stack all of humanity in one small corner of the grand canyon but “there’s not enough room for people to live in a home.” yet millions of houses and apartments stand empty as placeholders for equity and investment.
Scarcity is a choice, not a fact of existence. Stop buying the propaganda.
Thr current situation is a choice. Scarcity is a fact. Resources are limited by physics.
The scarcity you’re talking about is cosmic in scale, and doesn’t have a lot to do with the false scarcity people are talking about.
Absolutely. Still makws it a true statement. I am pedantic, I know. Sorry.
Not all true statements are on topic, I had to learn the hard way too. I know how it is
What he accomplished was to teach otherwise isolated civilizations that unless they put aside their differences and worked together they were vulnerable to devastating attack.
One point I liked about Alternate History Hub’s version of this is that they pointed out that very few people actually knew what happened. Imagine if half the people on Earth today turned to dust in an instant, and imagine this was a world where Marvel had never existed. Most people would interpret that as some sort of act of Divine judgment. A quote I loved from that video was something like, “people will come to many conclusions. Giant purple man with magic space gems is not the explanation they’ll go to first…or ever.”
I don’t think Thanos taught anyone anything. Billions of species throughout the universe saw half their population turn to dust. Then a few years later, all those people just mysteriously came back. They have no idea what a Thanos is. They’ve never never heard of the Avengers or the Infinity Stones. It’s just this completely inexplicable event outside all known laws of science. It’s unambiguous proof that some sort of supernatural forces exist in the universe, but everything beyond that is open to interpretation.
I was actually referring to his campaign before he obtained the Infinity Stones to enact his “final solution”. He references it in Infinity war when talking to his “daughter” trying to make her see his way by telling her that her home planet had become a “paradise where no child goes hungry”.
Ecofascism.
The koalas are cunts but at least they enforce 18-hour mandatory breaks.
Gee, I wonder which group is going to be genocided by the wealthy…
What, you think it’ll just be one group?
So you often feel the need to “one up” people in conversation?
Lol, ok dude.
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.
Less consumers and less slaves? Noooo what will the investors do? We need MORE MORE MORE
There was this book about a fertility reducing virus.
Dan Brown Inferno
Right, that one. Punchline was good.
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.
Always has been.
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.)
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.
The issue with halving in that people will be left beehind alone and sad. We could just remove all humas, this way nobody is sad
Are these scientists with us on the room right now?