this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2023
135 points (98.6% liked)

World News

38563 readers
2482 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PlasmaDistortion@lemm.ee 45 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

I think 8 billion people is enough to consider childbirths as non essential for a while. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

[–] ripcord@kbin.social 17 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Waiting for a bunch of people to show up and make a big thing about how the earth can support billions more, up to 100 billion or something.

They weirdly seem to show up every time someone suggests that either we should stop growing or maybe even shrink for a while.

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] ripcord@kbin.social 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 7 points 9 months ago

Well, my family is doing our part. We went from 8 people three generations ago on my dad's side to just one. My wife and I had one son. Everyone else on that side of the family had no children.

My family is definitely an outlier... There were a lot of DINKs and so-called urban professionals who decided not to have kids. Honestly it feels kind of weird now that my parents are in their '70s, as Holidays are now just my wife, my son and myself. We don't have a family to have a reunion with.