4 ms·

Not to make people as miserable as possible, it's to stop people (other than them) from having children, because they read The Population Bomb and Urban Growth

Not to make people as miserable as possible, it's to stop people (other than them) from having children, because they read The Population Bomb and Urban Growth Engines in the 70s and believed it. However that book is also what caused China to adopt its one-child policy, so they ended up much worse off from it than the US did. Thanos, who thinks the universe is overpopulated and needs to be saved by killing half of it, is a parody of these people's politics.

systemvoltage 3y ago
The people that promote climate doom want their genes to propagate with abundance of resources, and are trying to convince the rest of the world to stop having kids.
- astrange 3y ago
  I don't think that's their motivation, but either way they're wrong, as resources aren't used per-person and reducing the population will not give them more resources. Rather less, as there will be less people to invent new more productive ways to use them. Lot of places on Earth deforested themselves with much smaller populations than they have now, because they cut down all the trees to make firewood.
  - systemvoltage 3y ago
    Yes, it’s ironic. There is no explicit direct motivation but through indirect effects of current zeitgeist: I personally know many people in Bay Area that drive multiple 600hp+ gasoline cars with child seats, no less, but are frothing with climate doom and gloom. Interestingly and again ironically, the people that actually care about climate are the country folk. Ask them and talk to them. They love their neighborhoods. They love the mountains. They don’t waste. They don’t spill. The absolute moronic population in places like Berkeley and SF want to propel the rot they’ve created in the name of whatever idiotic ideology they have going on. Irresponsible and relentless recycling like a goddamn religion without understanding the net effect of recycling. Don’t ever question, you’ll get spit on. God, I despise the laptop class people myself being part of it.
astrange 3y ago
Here's 70s environmentalist-type Jane Goodall proposing to kill 95% of people on Earth. https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1690305655532302336 https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/16903056555323023... It's from a right wing conspiracy account, but I think the best way to avoid people claiming you're in a conspiracy to advocate for killing 95% people on Earth is to not go on stage and say it.
- jay_kyburz 3y ago
  Perhaps you should watch the video a bit closer, she didn't mention killing anybody. She said we would have less environment problems if there were less people, and she is 100% correct.
  - astrange 3y ago
    Those are the same thing. That's how you get there. And she isn't correct, the US uses less water, emits less carbon[0], and has more trees than it did with a much smaller population because we invented productivity-enhancing technology. Conversely, if the population declines you'd be in a deflationary economy, where people will consume all the resources they can now and won't hold off or invest in the future since they expect it to be worse. [0] you're going to say we outsourced it to China. We didn't!
    - joker_minmax 3y ago
      How exactly can we verify that we haven't outsourced it to China when almost all our consumer goods are manufactured there? Do consumer goods not count in our consumption?
    - jay_kyburz 3y ago
      Killing a living person, and not having a children are not the same thing. Your second statement is just as bonkers as the first. The US uses less water and has more trees than it did before because we care about those things now, not because there are more people.

systemvoltage 3y ago

The people that promote climate doom want their genes to propagate with abundance of resources, and are trying to convince the rest of the world to stop having kids.

astrange 3y ago
I don't think that's their motivation, but either way they're wrong, as resources aren't used per-person and reducing the population will not give them more resources. Rather less, as there will be less people to invent new more productive ways to use them. Lot of places on Earth deforested themselves with much smaller populations than they have now, because they cut down all the trees to make firewood.
- systemvoltage 3y ago
  Yes, it’s ironic. There is no explicit direct motivation but through indirect effects of current zeitgeist: I personally know many people in Bay Area that drive multiple 600hp+ gasoline cars with child seats, no less, but are frothing with climate doom and gloom. Interestingly and again ironically, the people that actually care about climate are the country folk. Ask them and talk to them. They love their neighborhoods. They love the mountains. They don’t waste. They don’t spill. The absolute moronic population in places like Berkeley and SF want to propel the rot they’ve created in the name of whatever idiotic ideology they have going on. Irresponsible and relentless recycling like a goddamn religion without understanding the net effect of recycling. Don’t ever question, you’ll get spit on. God, I despise the laptop class people myself being part of it.

astrange 3y ago

Here's 70s environmentalist-type Jane Goodall proposing to kill 95% of people on Earth. https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1690305655532302336 https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/16903056555323023... It's from a right wing conspiracy account, but I think the best way to avoid people claiming you're in a conspiracy to advocate for killing 95% people on Earth is to not go on stage and say it.

jay_kyburz 3y ago
Perhaps you should watch the video a bit closer, she didn't mention killing anybody. She said we would have less environment problems if there were less people, and she is 100% correct.
- astrange 3y ago
  Those are the same thing. That's how you get there. And she isn't correct, the US uses less water, emits less carbon[0], and has more trees than it did with a much smaller population because we invented productivity-enhancing technology. Conversely, if the population declines you'd be in a deflationary economy, where people will consume all the resources they can now and won't hold off or invest in the future since they expect it to be worse. [0] you're going to say we outsourced it to China. We didn't!
  - joker_minmax 3y ago
    How exactly can we verify that we haven't outsourced it to China when almost all our consumer goods are manufactured there? Do consumer goods not count in our consumption?
  - jay_kyburz 3y ago
    Killing a living person, and not having a children are not the same thing. Your second statement is just as bonkers as the first. The US uses less water and has more trees than it did before because we care about those things now, not because there are more people.