A total of 157 elementary schools across South Korea do not have any first graders set to enroll in March, the Ministry of Education said Monday, as a record-low number of new students is expected for the upcoming school year. According to the ministry, nearly every provincial and metropolitan area across South Korea had at least one elementary school that was not expecting new students, except Seoul, Gwangju, Daejeo...
Yeah but we need this long term. I get it, current economies are fueled by endless growth, raise your hand if you think that’ll keep working for the next 100, 300, 500 years!
The reality is that we probably need to reduce the global population by a few billion and then sustain that number and scrap our entire economic system in favor of one that prioritizes sustainability. Better now than in 100 years when there’s no food or water left.
Human population should probably reduce to about 10% of what it currently is. Basically, as a species, people need to get over the arrogance of needing to propagate THEIR genetic lines, as if that’s somehow important. It’s unsustainable.
Will you be the one to be deciding who can and cannot have kids then? Will sterilizations be optional? Or will they be mandatory for undesirables only? Every study ahows that simply providing decent food and home security results in decreased in birth rates.
Why do people assume that talking about reducing population by lowering birthrates always jump to mass murder? Idk, maybe it’s just a severe lack of reading comprehension or critical thinking…
Because when you’re talking about reducing population “to 10%” you sound like a genocidal ghoul. Work on your own critical thinking and maybe consider acquiring a modicum of common sense.
I read the original comment, and they never said to kill anyone. As an example if people only had 1 kid per person, that would eventually drop the population by 50%, then keep going. This is just an example, and a peaceful one.
They never said anything about killing or genocide, nor did they imply it. Maybe you lack common sense.
We all die eventually. Nothing wrong with that. If I learned anything in DiffEq it’s that uncontrolled growth will eventually blow up the model or find some mode of control.
Reducing human population will be a painful process and we’re already seeing the beginning of it. People don’t need to be killed to reduce population by 10%.
Birth rate needs to be smaller than death rate.
There are lots of things that effect birth and death rate.
He said “to 10%” not “by 10%”, meaning he thinks we should reduce population by 7.2 billion people. That requires more than statistical differences. That requires mass death.
I agree that we should replace the economic system, but overpopulation is a myth and depopulating is not actually necessary in our journey for sustainability.
First of all, it’s Brigham young university. Secondly, higher population doesn’t magically make more helium on the planet, or lithium, or the sand used in concrete, or petroleum, or other rare earths. All these things are finite. Some of these things are already in short supply now. How is adding 20 billlion more people gonna make finite and scare essential resources more abundant? Your link talks about availability of resources within a system where there is essentially limitless production- you can’t make batteries and solar cells and plastic and food and gas out of magic Mormon underpants, these are real exhaustible resources which are already being taxed. Maybe “god will provide” huh.
Yeah but we need this long term. I get it, current economies are fueled by endless growth, raise your hand if you think that’ll keep working for the next 100, 300, 500 years!
The reality is that we probably need to reduce the global population by a few billion and then sustain that number and scrap our entire economic system in favor of one that prioritizes sustainability. Better now than in 100 years when there’s no food or water left.
100 years? The way things are going I doubt we have more then 10-15 before mass starvation begins due to crop failures and water shortages.
Indeed but even without climate change, the current system is doomed to collapse because it’s simply not sustainable.
Climate change is going to accelerate that 10X.
I for one see it as a good thing because fuck this arrangement.
Nah we’ll just do what we are doing until it’s too late cuz conservatives don’t want change
It’s right there in the name, baby. Conserve the status quo. Even better, reverse it to an older, even worse status quo if possible
Human population should probably reduce to about 10% of what it currently is. Basically, as a species, people need to get over the arrogance of needing to propagate THEIR genetic lines, as if that’s somehow important. It’s unsustainable.
Will you be the one to be deciding who can and cannot have kids then? Will sterilizations be optional? Or will they be mandatory for undesirables only? Every study ahows that simply providing decent food and home security results in decreased in birth rates.
If you’ll re-read my comment, you’ll notice that I put the onus on people as a whole and not some group that would make the decisions.
Hey, you’re the one saying he wants 7.2 billion people to die, take some responsibility and tell us who should be first into the camps.
Why do people assume that talking about reducing population by lowering birthrates always jump to mass murder? Idk, maybe it’s just a severe lack of reading comprehension or critical thinking…
Because when you’re talking about reducing population “to 10%” you sound like a genocidal ghoul. Work on your own critical thinking and maybe consider acquiring a modicum of common sense.
I read the original comment, and they never said to kill anyone. As an example if people only had 1 kid per person, that would eventually drop the population by 50%, then keep going. This is just an example, and a peaceful one.
They never said anything about killing or genocide, nor did they imply it. Maybe you lack common sense.
You’ll prevent the birth of trillions of people because of that. Monster! /S
We all die eventually. Nothing wrong with that. If I learned anything in DiffEq it’s that uncontrolled growth will eventually blow up the model or find some mode of control.
Reducing human population will be a painful process and we’re already seeing the beginning of it. People don’t need to be killed to reduce population by 10%.
Birth rate needs to be smaller than death rate.
There are lots of things that effect birth and death rate.
He said “to 10%” not “by 10%”, meaning he thinks we should reduce population by 7.2 billion people. That requires more than statistical differences. That requires mass death.
You first.
So you’re saying 90% of the human race should die? And here I thought the IDF was genocidal!
No, it’s about reducing replicating to avoid a 90% die off
Reducing to 10% (like he’s proposing) would be a 90% die-off.
Everyone is going to die at some point. They’re not suggesting hastening that, but rather not replacing yourself.
I agree that we should replace the economic system, but overpopulation is a myth and depopulating is not actually necessary in our journey for sustainability.
https://www.cato.org/policy-report/november/december-2022/valuable-people-debunking-myth-overpopulation#:~:text=One of the most popular,human action and economic progress.
First of all, it’s Brigham young university. Secondly, higher population doesn’t magically make more helium on the planet, or lithium, or the sand used in concrete, or petroleum, or other rare earths. All these things are finite. Some of these things are already in short supply now. How is adding 20 billlion more people gonna make finite and scare essential resources more abundant? Your link talks about availability of resources within a system where there is essentially limitless production- you can’t make batteries and solar cells and plastic and food and gas out of magic Mormon underpants, these are real exhaustible resources which are already being taxed. Maybe “god will provide” huh.
If we can reach asteroid mining that will solve a lot of scarcity issues.
Who’s upvoting this? You’re not wrong, but that’s a completely different conversation and moving the goalpost.
“…depopulating is not actually necessary in our journey for sustainability.” Illustrating this point in the comment you replied to.
Removed by mod
good god i hope not