It actually can. Check out SFIA’s “a trillion people on earth” video.
It requires no new tech, but does require some refinment of already existing tech. More unrealisticly, it requires massive logistical and financial cooperation.
Right but people get really upset at the idea of no growth or reducing the human population, even.
I mentioned it once and several people called me a eugenicist, for example. Just made the point that if we had, say, half as many people, then it’d go a long way to help with things like pollution, resource issues, mass extinction, and climate change.
No but seriously, I know that for me, what gets me incredibly annoyed when this topic comes up, is the absolutists that rail on anyone wanting any children. Like, I get it man, you don’t want kids. But that doesn’t mean I’m wrong for wanting kids.
These people get very high and mighty on their claim that those of us that want children are selfish for “bringing them into a dying planet”.
You’re framing it in such a way to say “hey, maybe let’s slow down population growth”. They’re saying “we need to never have children again”.
One of those scenarios leads to the end of human civilization. If that’s your goal, you have bigger psychological issues than you realize. (Not you; the general you)
The counter-argument about “the end of human civilization” is so hollow to me. I mean, what benefit does human civilization bring to anyone other than humans? It’s a circular argument. There’s no inherent need or reason for homo sapiens to continue ad infinitum. We could save literally countless other species by letting the single most destructive one die out.
Now, do I want to actively end the life of myself or anyone I know? Of course not. But at the same time I’m also never, ever having kids.
Much of the developed world is sliding into fascism because of climate change-driven migration. Environmentally, every decade for the foreseeable future will be worse than the one that preceded it. The technology that was supposed to make our lives better and easier is instead used to depress wages, or simply mechanize away jobs.
And all the while, most of those in positions of power - and their most loyal voters - are dead set against a universal basic income, instead opting for ever more oppressive wage slavery, simply because profits have to grow every quarter in spite of their natural tendency to decline.
These trends, along with many others, mean that the average child born in a developed nation today can more often than not expect a lower standard of living than that of their parents. And that pattern has no reason to reverse. The people running the world into oblivion have suckered too many rubes to go along with them via a false sense of cultural solidarity and hostility toward anyone they’re told not to like.
The line is going down. It’s been going down since the neoliberal turn, and nothing we do will pull it back up at this point. Too many global biophysical and socio-political systems have been broken in a self-reinforcing manner to revive the vitality of this planet as long as we continue to inhabit it. The best I personally can hope for is some global-scale healing to begin a couple hundred years after we’re gone.
Only way to fix the damage it to tech up harder. Even if the planet is done humanity has left it’s mark on the planet.
Killing humanity off and hoping the mess cleans itself off is disrespectful to the planet we lived on. Make the mess clean it up.
Most non-boomer people see this as an issue so it only doom and gloom until boomers f off. No one had solar 20 years ago now they are accessible.
the mid-1900s, factories and power plants produced copious amounts of sulfur dioxide, which can cause acid rain. Between 1995 and 2022, the national level of sulfur dioxide emissions decreased by over 90 percent.
only hope is more science to achieve balance. Humans are in the early stages we still haven’t left the crib and there is no one to clean our mess but us.
It actually can. Check out SFIA’s “a trillion people on earth” video.
It requires no new tech, but does require some refinment of already existing tech. More unrealisticly, it requires massive logistical and financial cooperation.
Can it? In theory yes
Should it? Oh God no, no more humans plz
Right but people get really upset at the idea of no growth or reducing the human population, even.
I mentioned it once and several people called me a eugenicist, for example. Just made the point that if we had, say, half as many people, then it’d go a long way to help with things like pollution, resource issues, mass extinction, and climate change.
Calm down, Thanos.
No but seriously, I know that for me, what gets me incredibly annoyed when this topic comes up, is the absolutists that rail on anyone wanting any children. Like, I get it man, you don’t want kids. But that doesn’t mean I’m wrong for wanting kids.
These people get very high and mighty on their claim that those of us that want children are selfish for “bringing them into a dying planet”.
You’re framing it in such a way to say “hey, maybe let’s slow down population growth”. They’re saying “we need to never have children again”.
One of those scenarios leads to the end of human civilization. If that’s your goal, you have bigger psychological issues than you realize. (Not you; the general you)
The counter-argument about “the end of human civilization” is so hollow to me. I mean, what benefit does human civilization bring to anyone other than humans? It’s a circular argument. There’s no inherent need or reason for homo sapiens to continue ad infinitum. We could save literally countless other species by letting the single most destructive one die out.
Now, do I want to actively end the life of myself or anyone I know? Of course not. But at the same time I’m also never, ever having kids.
Much of the developed world is sliding into fascism because of climate change-driven migration. Environmentally, every decade for the foreseeable future will be worse than the one that preceded it. The technology that was supposed to make our lives better and easier is instead used to depress wages, or simply mechanize away jobs.
And all the while, most of those in positions of power - and their most loyal voters - are dead set against a universal basic income, instead opting for ever more oppressive wage slavery, simply because profits have to grow every quarter in spite of their natural tendency to decline.
These trends, along with many others, mean that the average child born in a developed nation today can more often than not expect a lower standard of living than that of their parents. And that pattern has no reason to reverse. The people running the world into oblivion have suckered too many rubes to go along with them via a false sense of cultural solidarity and hostility toward anyone they’re told not to like.
The line is going down. It’s been going down since the neoliberal turn, and nothing we do will pull it back up at this point. Too many global biophysical and socio-political systems have been broken in a self-reinforcing manner to revive the vitality of this planet as long as we continue to inhabit it. The best I personally can hope for is some global-scale healing to begin a couple hundred years after we’re gone.
Only way to fix the damage it to tech up harder. Even if the planet is done humanity has left it’s mark on the planet. Killing humanity off and hoping the mess cleans itself off is disrespectful to the planet we lived on. Make the mess clean it up. Most non-boomer people see this as an issue so it only doom and gloom until boomers f off. No one had solar 20 years ago now they are accessible. the mid-1900s, factories and power plants produced copious amounts of sulfur dioxide, which can cause acid rain. Between 1995 and 2022, the national level of sulfur dioxide emissions decreased by over 90 percent. only hope is more science to achieve balance. Humans are in the early stages we still haven’t left the crib and there is no one to clean our mess but us.
Beautifully written.