Fucking 80's Movie and Cartoon Villains were cunning along with being ruthless, that we as the audience sorta respected them, despite our distaste for them.
We were lied to. Our real life villains are dumb as fuck. Fucking fail children (Yup, Trump, even you were Fred's failure kid.) ruining the fucking world.
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
Elon Musk's financial solvency
Given ideal resource distribution, or even marginally okay distribution based on need, we could support plenty more people
Here in the throes of late capitalism, however, a lot of people don't get what they need, but that's not an argument about "we should have less people" that's an argument for "we should have a better system for distributing resources"
needing less people is something people thought might be true in the 70s and 80s, it's turned out to largely not be true as far as I know. Some people still talk about it but it often feels like the only ones left who are really seriously into the idea that there's too many humans are racists looking for an excuses to genocide people.
+8
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
needing less people is something people thought might be true in the 70s and 80s, it's turned out to largely not be true as far as I know. Some people still talk about it but it often feels like the only ones left who are really seriously into the idea that there's too many humans are racists looking for an excuses to genocide people.
Also misogynists that want women to be subservient and have children and raise them with a fuck-off dad.
To be honest, I haven’t thought a ton about this, but my impression the main reasons to have more people is to: 1) increase economic growth (capitalism likes this) 2) increase military/industrial capability (nation states like this).
If you aren’t concerned with these things I don’t see a need for more people (I also, don’t really see a need for less people, more like the number of people is largely a consequence of other systems that are in play).
Overall, I’m more concerned with the treatment and wellbeing of people in general than the total count of people, I guess.
There's also climate considerations. We are trying to reduce our co2 per person, but simply reducing the number of people is much more effective. The choice to not have or have fewer children with the aim of reducing carbon footprint is a choice that is becoming more common.
Okay, for the overpopulation myth vs low birth rate myth (ie racist scarcity):
Humans are just as much a part of a given ecosystem, and drastically changing any factor will have often disastrous short-term effects.
Some think wiping the slate clean (fewer people) is a solution, but that just kicks the effect slightly down the road rather than amending the cause, with the immediate bonus of some real fucked mental gymnastics that can trigger depression and suicidal tendencies, and a justification for violence to others.
Humans are not the problem, the problem is the systems we've created that separate us from immediate consequence of understanding our niche as such (as a result of exceptionalism, expansionism, imperialism, capitalism, take your pick of -isms.)
If you treat the world as resources to utilize, or exploit, you hold yourself separate, or above. It encourages a self-centered scarcity mindset, hoarding those resources to excess, and othering those outside your group as depriving you of what is rightfully yours, alien and undeserving.
There's also climate considerations. We are trying to reduce our co2 per person, but simply reducing the number of people is much more effective. The choice to not have or have fewer children with the aim of reducing carbon footprint is a choice that is becoming more common.
Climate consciousness is good but carbon footprints are, to a degree, greenwashing by oil companies intended to compress the climate crisis into individual action and remove blame from themselves
The way to fight the climate crisis is through forcing the actual big emitters to fuck off
Controlling population size is not nearly as efficient a way to push back on climate change
The extent to which Musk does not realize a ton of violent statements are acceptable under the first amendment is believable because he is a fool.
Like a person saying "we should murder all billionaires" or "we should kill all white people" is something that I doubt he would consider acceptable on Twitter.
Some think wiping the slate clean (fewer people) is a solution, but that just kicks the effect slightly down the road rather than amending the cause, with the immediate bonus of some real fucked mental gymnastics that can trigger depression and suicidal tendencies, and a justification for violence to others.
Note that there's also an important distinction to be made between "wiping the slate clean (fewer people)", which just kicks the can down the road a bit and has a bunch of racist stuff going on, and "wiping the slate clean (human extinction)", which is... well, I guess it's tackling the root cause of a separate problem (humans destroying the environment) but it's a smidge extreme. (At least the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement are more about trying to encourage people not to have kids rather than advocating violence? I guess???)
But yeah, the big obvious racist dogwhistle with the whole human overpopulation argument is that you can look at where population growth is happening and, well, it's poorer countries. Oh boy, I wonder why people would be concerned about growth rates being high in Africa and low-to-negative in Europe...
There's also climate considerations. We are trying to reduce our co2 per person, but simply reducing the number of people is much more effective. The choice to not have or have fewer children with the aim of reducing carbon footprint is a choice that is becoming more common.
Climate consciousness is good but carbon footprints are, to a degree, greenwashing by oil companies intended to compress the climate crisis into individual action and remove blame from themselves
The way to fight the climate crisis is through forcing the actual big emitters to fuck off
Controlling population size is not nearly as efficient a way to push back on climate change
I disagree with this. Yes, industries need to clean up their act (literally and figuratively). But we (i.e., largely Westerners) also need to consume less.
Take fast fashion. Yes, the companies making the clothes are awful both on pollution and humanitarian issues. But we buy the clothes, even the ones who can afford high-quality lasting clothes often buy the cheap stuff to save money or keep up with fashion.
We need to buy less stuff we don't need, and the stuff we do buy to be high-quality and lasting. And industry need to produce to higher environmental standards.
There's also climate considerations. We are trying to reduce our co2 per person, but simply reducing the number of people is much more effective. The choice to not have or have fewer children with the aim of reducing carbon footprint is a choice that is becoming more common.
Climate consciousness is good but carbon footprints are, to a degree, greenwashing by oil companies intended to compress the climate crisis into individual action and remove blame from themselves
The way to fight the climate crisis is through forcing the actual big emitters to fuck off
Controlling population size is not nearly as efficient a way to push back on climate change
I disagree with this. Yes, industries need to clean up their act (literally and figuratively). But we (i.e., largely Westerners) also need to consume less.
Take fast fashion. Yes, the companies making the clothes are awful both on pollution and humanitarian issues. But we buy the clothes, even the ones who can afford high-quality lasting clothes often buy the cheap stuff to save money or keep up with fashion.
We need to buy less stuff we don't need, and the stuff we do buy to be high-quality and lasting. And industry need to produce to higher environmental standards.
This is what I meant about climate consciousness yeah - I wasn't intending to totally override things like avoiding/pushing back on consumer culture
But if the conversation is about justifying a reduction in population as a way to push back on the climate crisis I feel like that's a wild misdirect that also functionally guilts people who care about the climate crisis but choose to have kids, not to mention the aforementioned issue of predominantly non-Western countries being the ones whose populations are increasing (thereby giving Western countries a reason to blame them for contributing to climate change)
Whether or not to have kids is a longer-term decision when what's necessary is immediate action by governments and citizens to push back on large emitters
There's also climate considerations. We are trying to reduce our co2 per person, but simply reducing the number of people is much more effective. The choice to not have or have fewer children with the aim of reducing carbon footprint is a choice that is becoming more common.
Weird how rich conservatives are worried about overpopulation and low birth rates at the same time.
Oh, right, because it's about the right kind of babies being born.
Africa, as a continent, has the smallest carbon footprint despite being the second-most populous country. The number of people living there is not the issue.
There's also climate considerations. We are trying to reduce our co2 per person, but simply reducing the number of people is much more effective. The choice to not have or have fewer children with the aim of reducing carbon footprint is a choice that is becoming more common.
Weird how rich conservatives are worried about overpopulation and low birth rates at the same time.
Oh, right, because it's about the right kind of babies being born.
Africa, as a continent, has the smallest carbon footprint despite being the second-most populous country. The number of people living there is not the issue.
Now now it's also about what most easily allows you to argue for the policing of women's bodies. A friend of mine works with a Muskhead who when asked to provide proof that Musk is extremely smart answered that he's the only one speaking up about low birthrates and advocating for forced marriages and ending abortion to "fix" the issue.
I think I would be mildly happy if Musk somehow contributed to an actual fucking GOP schism in the next two years and those fuckers wound up spending their efforts on an internecine political war of succession instead of making the rest of our lives miserable
i don't think what they feel is shame i think what they feel is smugness
a desire for centrism is not borne out of a belief that the extreme right wing is too extreme, it's borne out of a belief that you are a very intelligent person who knows to just pick and choose the best from Both Sides because you are an intellectual and not a lunatic driven by dogma. you care more about norms and appearances than you do about political philosophy. you strive for ideals that reassure you that you are smart, and other people are irrational idiots, and you surround yourself with people that reinforce that and who sound like your definition of an intellectual.
+38
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Centrists are the same as they have been for the last few years - people who like what Trump was doing but wish he wasn't so embarrassing and uncouth about it.
Like, one of the most common """"funny memes"""" to post about being a centrist is where you put yourself at the center of a bar with left and right on either side, and the left guy runs off further to the left, and then calls you a racist because they pulled the bar further left. They laugh at being called right wing, because in their mind the only thing that makes them right-wing is that you are a foolish emotion-driven moron.
I mean I used to think I didn't want kids cause of climate consciousness, but it turned out I just don't want kids.
+7
Options
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
Have we tried just killing all the poor people. Like not the slow death of the soul we’ve had going for centuries. Just like, real Midgar sector 7 shit
Have we tried just killing all the poor people. Like not the slow death of the soul we’ve had going for centuries. Just like, real Midgar sector 7 shit
Centrists are the same as they have been for the last few years - people who like what Trump was doing but wish he wasn't so embarrassing and uncouth about it.
Of course they like Desantis.
I disagree with this sentiment, in that a lot of Democratic centrists don't like what Trump was doing... but as long as he was doing it quietly, out of sight, and behaved very politely in public they would simply actively not be aware of it.
Have we tried just killing all the poor people. Like not the slow death of the soul we’ve had going for centuries. Just like, real Midgar sector 7 shit
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
A head of lettuce
Here I am blue sky thinking among friends and here if the machine had said yes you’d already be dropping the plate
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
There's also climate considerations. We are trying to reduce our co2 per person, but simply reducing the number of people is much more effective. The choice to not have or have fewer children with the aim of reducing carbon footprint is a choice that is becoming more common.
Climate consciousness is good but carbon footprints are, to a degree, greenwashing by oil companies intended to compress the climate crisis into individual action and remove blame from themselves
The way to fight the climate crisis is through forcing the actual big emitters to fuck off
Controlling population size is not nearly as efficient a way to push back on climate change
Branding the climate crisis as individual "green intiatives" is one of the two most damaging tends orchestrated by corporations.
The other is 'side hustle' for 'second job'.
I am in the business of saving lives.
+19
Options
Garlic Breadi'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm aRegistered User, Disagreeableregular
Human populations seem to grow until they reach comfortable carrying capacity and then level out to roughly replacement levels. The global growth rate has been decelerating since the 1960s and looks like it's going to stabilize around 2100, barring any significant changes to the situation (hello climate change). Carrying capacity is affected by food availability, medical technology, living space and economic prosperity.
The issue is that we might not be stabilising at replacement levels. Which is good! We need less people in general, and you can't get a better "less people" than dying of old age (as opposed to plague or war). Things are going to get a little hairy in the transition, we've built so much of our society on the concept of endless growth, but hopefully we're gonna end up in a better place than we are now.
We do not need less people. We can handle a lot more people on Earth we just need better distribution of resources, and less pollution.
reminder that population control is fascist talk and should not be entertained. ecofascism is a core belief for nazis
the same people that sell us the lie that we are responsible for our own suffering are the ones that exploit us and the earth
There's also climate considerations. We are trying to reduce our co2 per person, but simply reducing the number of people is much more effective. The choice to not have or have fewer children with the aim of reducing carbon footprint is a choice that is becoming more common.
Climate consciousness is good but carbon footprints are, to a degree, greenwashing by oil companies intended to compress the climate crisis into individual action and remove blame from themselves
The way to fight the climate crisis is through forcing the actual big emitters to fuck off
Controlling population size is not nearly as efficient a way to push back on climate change
some of this also became very obvious during 2020 where everyone staying inside resulted in, what, a 5% global reduction in CO2 emissions?
so no matter how hard individuals are going to reduce their carbon footprint, corporations make up a hefty chunk of that remaining 95%... and they're perfectly happy to just deflect all the blame to the 5%.
Posts
Turns out, Captain Planet's villains weren't cartoonish enough.
Here in the throes of late capitalism, however, a lot of people don't get what they need, but that's not an argument about "we should have less people" that's an argument for "we should have a better system for distributing resources"
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Splitters!
Also misogynists that want women to be subservient and have children and raise them with a fuck-off dad.
Like musk
If you aren’t concerned with these things I don’t see a need for more people (I also, don’t really see a need for less people, more like the number of people is largely a consequence of other systems that are in play).
Overall, I’m more concerned with the treatment and wellbeing of people in general than the total count of people, I guess.
Humans are just as much a part of a given ecosystem, and drastically changing any factor will have often disastrous short-term effects.
Some think wiping the slate clean (fewer people) is a solution, but that just kicks the effect slightly down the road rather than amending the cause, with the immediate bonus of some real fucked mental gymnastics that can trigger depression and suicidal tendencies, and a justification for violence to others.
Humans are not the problem, the problem is the systems we've created that separate us from immediate consequence of understanding our niche as such (as a result of exceptionalism, expansionism, imperialism, capitalism, take your pick of -isms.)
If you treat the world as resources to utilize, or exploit, you hold yourself separate, or above. It encourages a self-centered scarcity mindset, hoarding those resources to excess, and othering those outside your group as depriving you of what is rightfully yours, alien and undeserving.
Anyway,
Climate consciousness is good but carbon footprints are, to a degree, greenwashing by oil companies intended to compress the climate crisis into individual action and remove blame from themselves
The way to fight the climate crisis is through forcing the actual big emitters to fuck off
Controlling population size is not nearly as efficient a way to push back on climate change
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
Like a person saying "we should murder all billionaires" or "we should kill all white people" is something that I doubt he would consider acceptable on Twitter.
Someone tell him about the Shakers and see if we can blow his mind.
Note that there's also an important distinction to be made between "wiping the slate clean (fewer people)", which just kicks the can down the road a bit and has a bunch of racist stuff going on, and "wiping the slate clean (human extinction)", which is... well, I guess it's tackling the root cause of a separate problem (humans destroying the environment) but it's a smidge extreme. (At least the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement are more about trying to encourage people not to have kids rather than advocating violence? I guess???)
But yeah, the big obvious racist dogwhistle with the whole human overpopulation argument is that you can look at where population growth is happening and, well, it's poorer countries. Oh boy, I wonder why people would be concerned about growth rates being high in Africa and low-to-negative in Europe...
Yeah, collective action problems are a real bear. Doing what you can is good and all.
I disagree with this. Yes, industries need to clean up their act (literally and figuratively). But we (i.e., largely Westerners) also need to consume less.
Take fast fashion. Yes, the companies making the clothes are awful both on pollution and humanitarian issues. But we buy the clothes, even the ones who can afford high-quality lasting clothes often buy the cheap stuff to save money or keep up with fashion.
We need to buy less stuff we don't need, and the stuff we do buy to be high-quality and lasting. And industry need to produce to higher environmental standards.
This is what I meant about climate consciousness yeah - I wasn't intending to totally override things like avoiding/pushing back on consumer culture
But if the conversation is about justifying a reduction in population as a way to push back on the climate crisis I feel like that's a wild misdirect that also functionally guilts people who care about the climate crisis but choose to have kids, not to mention the aforementioned issue of predominantly non-Western countries being the ones whose populations are increasing (thereby giving Western countries a reason to blame them for contributing to climate change)
Whether or not to have kids is a longer-term decision when what's necessary is immediate action by governments and citizens to push back on large emitters
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
Weird how rich conservatives are worried about overpopulation and low birth rates at the same time.
Oh, right, because it's about the right kind of babies being born.
Africa, as a continent, has the smallest carbon footprint despite being the second-most populous country. The number of people living there is not the issue.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Now now it's also about what most easily allows you to argue for the policing of women's bodies. A friend of mine works with a Muskhead who when asked to provide proof that Musk is extremely smart answered that he's the only one speaking up about low birthrates and advocating for forced marriages and ending abortion to "fix" the issue.
1) DeSantis is none of these things
2) ahaha this motherfucker is so fucking pouting over Trump refusing to acknowledge him in any way
Who was it a few pages back who said Centrists are just right wingers with a mildly functional capacity for shame?
a desire for centrism is not borne out of a belief that the extreme right wing is too extreme, it's borne out of a belief that you are a very intelligent person who knows to just pick and choose the best from Both Sides because you are an intellectual and not a lunatic driven by dogma. you care more about norms and appearances than you do about political philosophy. you strive for ideals that reassure you that you are smart, and other people are irrational idiots, and you surround yourself with people that reinforce that and who sound like your definition of an intellectual.
Of course they like Desantis.
[stares in Avalanche]
[slowly slots materia into slot on bangle]
I disagree with this sentiment, in that a lot of Democratic centrists don't like what Trump was doing... but as long as he was doing it quietly, out of sight, and behaved very politely in public they would simply actively not be aware of it.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I thought we were the Popular Front.
Branding the climate crisis as individual "green intiatives" is one of the two most damaging tends orchestrated by corporations.
The other is 'side hustle' for 'second job'.
reminder that population control is fascist talk and should not be entertained. ecofascism is a core belief for nazis
the same people that sell us the lie that we are responsible for our own suffering are the ones that exploit us and the earth
some of this also became very obvious during 2020 where everyone staying inside resulted in, what, a 5% global reduction in CO2 emissions?
so no matter how hard individuals are going to reduce their carbon footprint, corporations make up a hefty chunk of that remaining 95%... and they're perfectly happy to just deflect all the blame to the 5%.
Because you get them talking for like two seconds about their solutions and they're probably going to land on a um. Final one.
Hey @Pkmoutl , did you ever apologize to the woman you sexually assaulted?
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786