• Zymi
    link
    English
    13
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Now please explain how you create a smaller population that doesn’t reek of eugenics, and you’ll see the problem.

    Nazis also wanted a smaller population so that the privileged few that remained could have a higher quality of life.

    • @Tavarin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      141 year ago

      Now please explain how you create a smaller population that doesn’t reek of eugenics

      Education. People tend to have fewer kids the more educated they become. Give everyone in the world top class educations, and the population will naturally decline.

      • @vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        Theres always the quiverful movement and similar shit to worry about. But im actually fine sterilizing them when their at fhe hospital for kid number 2. Becuase fuck the quiverful movement they want to drag us back to the fucking stone age.

        • @Tavarin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          The quiver-full people tend to be poorly educated, and tend to fall out of the idea once better educated.

          • @vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            Im aware but the problem is their super fucking insular when it comes to interacting with other groups. Anything that aint modern regressive christianity they practically hide from.

    • @fidodo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 year ago

      That is a disgusting over simplification of what the Nazis did and I’m not even going to bother talking to you if you’re just going to go straight to comparing everything to Nazis with zero nuance.

      • Zymi
        link
        English
        7
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        All population control is a form of eugenics, and it is not possible to implement as a policy without it AT LEAST disproportionally affecting an “undesired” group. Whether that is racial, GSRM, people with disabilities, or even class.

        Eugenics was the basis of the Final Solution, and should be looked at with disgust. There is no need for nuance when calling the sky blue.

        Sorry if the comparison offended your, but I suggest you think a bit deeper about this. Population isn’t really the problem, logistical and environmental issues from capital are. And population control is a poison pill meant to greenwash abhorrent ideology.

        • Communist_Lemming
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          Theoretically one could try to take an Thanos-like approach with equal mass-murder. Unfortunately that wouldn’t really help, since most countries can’t afford to lose half of their population, without going into a severe crisis-state. Instead we could just eradicate whole countries, not based on citizenship, but people who work in or profit from this country (to include Billionaires who get their money from companies in these countries). Chance of eradication correlate with the number of people to be eradicated (so a country with 1 Billion people in a world with 8 Billion will have a chamce of 1/8). Like that we could sit back and spin the wheel of fortune - “Death Edition” - till we get past wanted population size.

          This would also solve the issues steming from capital you mentioned. Due to globalisation the likely collapsing of China, India, maybe the USA, 1-3 big European countries and a hella lot of of Asian, latin American and African countries providing various resources, the economy and the finance systems would likely crash. Industrial states will probably have the most problems getting back on track due to their dependency on foreign slave labor. This rebuild may again be very eco-damaging, but with enough pressure it could be sustainable. For the finance system, there is the question if we even want to reestablish this system, where all debt can never be fully paid back or there is a trade with derivatives. (Seriously it’s fucked up. In 2007 the trade with derivates was about 1 Quadrillion, while the products produced in the last 1000 years roughly equal to 100 Trillions, a tenth. Guess what a major factor of the 2008 financial crisis was.)

          For not-so industrial countries, it would maybe not be that bad (?). While not having the ability to buy first world products, there also wouldn’t be assholes using them as a trash depot, or selling them stuff to bad for Europe and the USA at so cheap prices that the local economies collapse. But economic rise would in these countries probably cause more damage to the enviroment, due to missing knowledge and technology of e.g. sustainable energy.

          But at least it would be indiscrimatory (as much as you can be in an genocide without trowing humanity back into medivial times).

    • @ThatWeirdGuy1001@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      Easy. Un idiot proof the world. All warning labels removed. All laws to protect the physical self removed (seatbelts, drugs, suicide, etc). Let natural selection resume it’s work and prune the people these warnings were made for.

      That’s just one potential facet.

      Also before anybody thinks they’re so clever to bring it up, yes I know I would’ve been one of the ones to die since I was a stupid kid