this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
472 points (96.1% liked)

Technology

59756 readers
2800 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (27 children)

Most problems would simply not be a problem if we drastically reduce the human population. Which would not only avoid the issues caused by climate change but also would prevent further increases in pollution and CO2 emissions.

I don't know why the best solution is often the less talked about. Just stop having so many children. We don't have 70% infant mortality rate like we used to, there's no need to have 4 kids to preserve your legacy.

[–] 0x0@programming.dev 21 points 1 month ago (14 children)

if we drastically reduce the human population. Which would not only avoid the issues caused by climate change but also would prevent further increases in pollution and CO2 emissions.

Ignoring the genocide-apologist trend, the pandemic did wonders to reduce global warming.., perhaps start taxing more the companies that force back-to-office when they could clearly keep most of their work force at home?

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 month ago (11 children)

What genocide? Just sensible reproduction. There's two options. 10 billion people living miserably like during the pandemic. Or maybe 1 billion people being able to live good lives.

[–] petersr@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

I’m pretty sure he said have less children, not start death camps.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I literally said just having less children.

And I'm totally ok to only having between one or zero children myself.

[–] 0x0@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

China tried it, didn't go too well... good luck trying it on a global scale...

[–] MaggiWuerze@feddit.org 8 points 1 month ago

Chinas problem was also a still very uneducated and traditionalist populace, that insisted on having boys as heirs. Leading to abortions or straight up murder of female infants. That wouldn't really be a global issue I beleive

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Derived problems were product of a sexist society should be avoidable, you know, ending sexism...

Or are you supporting that people should be able to want male babies over female ones?

[–] 0x0@programming.dev -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oooooh, of course, how could i forget? Blame the cis white male and the patriarchy, or course!

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago

Literally the only big problem with china one-child policy, was that sexist parents were practicing selective abortions to ensure that they get one male kid.

No sexism = no problem

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)