0
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] animelivesmatter@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

what do you guys bet this image was made by a white person

[-] solarknight@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Well, when you live in huts like cavemen and your population is very spread out, of course you’re going to be less impactful. Shrinking the population WOULD help, no matter how much you scream about eugenics and fascism. Gonna be downvoted for this, but it’s just my opinion at the end of the day. No need to get butthurt, keyboard warriors.

[-] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

NEVER trust the vehement anti-natalist movements. It's thinly veiled eugenics that brands itself as super-moral.

[-] WimpyWoodchuck@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago

Reminder that almost every single one of us is part of the world's richest 10%.

[-] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Agreed. Exactly why we need to listen to these marginalized communities, and empower them to take action on our behalf and with our cooperation. It’s why no matter how good I think my ideas are, I try to recognize that I come from a position of relative privilege, and that it is likely that even my best of ideas will be lacking in intersectional analysis that is needed to develop real, powerful solutions.

[-] Godort@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago

I mean, shrinking the population would absolutely help assuming that you shrunk it enough.

It's hard to destroy an environment when the destroyers dont exist.

[-] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 1 points 2 years ago

Sure, or we could just ban super yachts, private jets, cruise ships and empower those indigenous communities who have had such meaningful successes to spread their ideas and understanding so that we can begin to develop a sustainable culture, and we don’t need to kill half the worlds population.

[-] LucyLastic@beehaw.org 0 points 2 years ago

¿por que no los dos?

Also, not half the population, more like 99.9% of it. Start with the richest first, and work your way down.

[-] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 1 points 2 years ago

I mean, were you paying attention? The answer to why not is because it’s eco-fascist rhetoric and I’m not an eco-fash.

[-] IninewCrow@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

It would be more efficient if we shrunk the power of the wealthiest individuals and made everyone fall under a wealthy limit

Why should one person own and control so much wealth when they will never realistically be able to enjoy all of that wealth during their lifetime? Especially if that one person hoarding all that wealth they'll never use is producing, creating and maintaining so much pollution for one individual.

this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
0 points (50.0% liked)

196

18051 readers
303 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS