114
sigh (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
(page 2) 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Scholars, the real deal, are rare for a reason - few people choose knowledge over wealth and power. There lies the crux of the matter, since anyone who pursues the other two paths would be the antithesis of the system so designed.

It's a nice model, but it runs too counter to human nature to work; and there is precious little (if anything) that can change the nature of a species as expansive as humanity.

there is no such thing as human nature

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Carmakazi@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

What are "Decent Living Standards?"

I'd bet that they're at least one step down from what the usual Westerner is accustomed to.

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

That's exactly what the article proposed:

'Drawing on recent empirical evidence, we show that ending poverty and ensuring decent living standards (DLS) for all, with a full range of necessary goods and services (a standard that approximately 80% of the world population presently does not achieve) can be provisioned for a projected population of 8.5 billion people in 2050 with around 30% of existing productive capacity, depending on our assumptions about distribution and technological deployment. "

So if you and everyone are willing to live on 30% less "money", worldwide poverty would be eliminated.

[-] brian@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago

That is definitely not what is presented in what you quoted.

Out of our current productive capabilities (how much money is "created" if you want), we would only need 30% of it to get 8.5 billion people to a "decent living standard".

That isnt a 30% reduction, it's only needing to make 30% of what we already are doing.

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

That's the same thing. The paper is arguing against the need to increase production vs redistribution of what is currently produced.

That isnt a 30% reduction, it's only needing to make 30% of what we already are doing.

Where does that 30% come from? They are explicitly saying that their analysis isn't about increasing production of anything. Redistribution means taking away from the rich developed population to give to the poor. They said take 30% and redistribute it. If you are on Lemmy, that includes you.

[-] brian@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago

That is not my interpretation on the paper. It's not taking 30% and spreading it. It's we only ever needed to be making 30% of our total being reasonably distributed for everyone to reach those standards.

"Provisioning decent living standards (DLS) for 8.5 billion people would require only 30% of current global resource and energy use, leaving a substantial surplus for additional consumption, public luxury, scientific advancement, and other social investments."

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

"I have a magical reality-changing glove. Should I change the nature of beings to want to share for the benefit of all? Nah, I'm gonna remove a random half of them from existence. It's clearly the ONLY thing I could possibly do to solve the problem! I'm so smart and awesome!"

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I agree with this, but I still feel there are too many people. Like we don't need 8.5 billion. We could use so much less stuff if we just stopped fucking so much. We could REDUCE the size of our grid significantly. That seems like a good goal.

Btw genocide is a dumb way to achieve this. Plenty easy to just let people live to death since you can provide for 3x the number of people.

Edit: I thought I made it clear with the above line, but I'm not suggesting fucking eugenics. How do you get that from what I said..? I literally specified the fucking opposite. Unless people view any form of population controls in any sense to be eugenics. Which is just fucking braindead.

[-] Kirp123@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Providing people with high standard of living lowers birth rates. It's a well established effect, every single country with high standard of living has low birthrates. Providing people with sexual education and sexual health also lowers birth rates. Educated people that have easy access to birth control will have fewer children.

Provide people with education and things they need and overpopulation is an issue that fixes itself.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 month ago

It’s got most of the same issues as eugenics - yeah, it’d be nice if nobody had to suffer obvious and objective genetic diseases but it consistently immediately turns into “well but I think being a red head is a genetic disease”. You have to consider how a solution can be achieved to really weigh its benefit versus alternatives.

We can feed everybody by Luigi-ing a rounding error’s worth of billionaires. Or we can reduce global population by a factor of 10, which is almost certainly going to disproportionately favor rich white dudes, do nothing to that handful of sociopaths, and they’ll still burn the planet to the ground.

[-] HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Ok but I never said anything about eugenics or a specific peoples. I said "we should have less people." And everyone got upset assuming I want to genocide the undesirables.

I literally just don't think we need 8 billion people. In no way did I suggest that we do it in a specific way or targeting specific people. Just a general 25-40% reduction in population over a few generations.

Literally all that needs to happen is more birth control for everyone. Not forced.

Idk why everyone gets so incensed by this.

[-] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

The issue is people have gone down this line of thinking dozens of times and it always ends the same way. Your inability to see that is how we get there.

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 0 points 4 weeks ago

Population is dropping in developed countries. Nothing needs to be done but let nature take its course. That's not anyone deciding anything.

[-] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 weeks ago

“Raise the standard of living for everyone and population will level out” is a perfectly reasonable angle. Just say that, because it’s dangerous to leave open ended.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] REDACTED@infosec.pub 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This somehow completely disregards the most critical side-effect of overpolulation esepcially when you calculate in dying oceans and trees.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

The sustainable capacity was calculated to be around 2 billion. This is not affected by food output.

[-] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 0 points 1 month ago

So farm less cattle and get away from fossil fuels.

[-] REDACTED@infosec.pub 0 points 1 month ago

So what you're saying is that earth under 8-9 billion people isn't sustainable and we need to start sacrificing our cars and meat due to overpolulation?

[-] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 0 points 1 month ago

I mean those are good decisions anyway, I would 1000% rather take 30 minute nap on a train/bys or ride a bike/electric motorcycle on the way to work than sit in traffic for an hour. As for meat, I'm not vegan, but I could be if seiten was more common.

[-] REDACTED@infosec.pub -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

There is almost no public transport outside cities. I don't remember the last time I had the opportunity to use one.

As for meat, I'm not vegan, but I could be if seiten was more common.

It's not just meat. Milk, cheese and related products (pizza?), clothing, oils, gas production, ectera ectera. Even fertilizer for crops. I'd rather have sustainable earth population than give up things that make me happy

[-] transebding_the_binary@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

so you rather genocide billions of people than give up minor comforts ?

(hyperbole)

on a different note there are a lot of things that can and have to be changed to live sustainably but these changes have to be addressed systematically

[-] REDACTED@infosec.pub -1 points 1 month ago

How about "we should regulate our birth rates and constant population growth for your capitalist machine is not a healthy way forward for this planet for literally anyone living here except for the rich" instead of your "so you want a genocide?"

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Resources aren't evenly distributed naturally, some area may not have enough resources.

It takes more resources to get more resources, we may be measuring 30% of total resources, but not 30% of resource capacity.

I'm fine with population control, but it should be implemented willingly at an individual level, and pushed via education and community acceptance. I catch a small amount of flak for not having kids, but wife catches a lot more.

[-] Samskara@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 month ago

A replacement birthrate leads to a more stable society. The elderly who are unable to work and ill need to be cared for. If ever fewer young and able people have to take care of ever more elderly, it won’t have a good outcome. Not having children of your own is being a burden on society.

[-] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

A replacement birthrate leads to a more stable society

Only if you assume that the amount of production for a hour of labor stays the same. Workers today accomplish much more in a given time period than workers 65 years ago. The problem is that value is horded instead of being made available to the people that created it.

[-] Samskara@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 month ago

Feeding an elderly person, washing them, changing their diapers takes the same amount of time as it did 150 years ago. Due to better health care and longer lives, the total cost of elderly health care and pensions eat up a lot of that productivity gain.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2025
114 points (98.3% liked)

Political Memes

9200 readers
818 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS