3 ms·

Here's 70s environmentalist-type Jane Goodall proposing to kill 95% of people on Earth. https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1690305655532302336 https://

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.
    - astrange 3y ago
      Even though there being more people, not because. I'm not claiming causation. However, you need a lot of people to have the advanced economy that makes it possible to invent clean energy.

3 ms·

Here's 70s environmentalist-type Jane Goodall proposing to kill 95% of people on Earth. https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1690305655532302336 https://

by astrange 3y ago

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.
    - astrange 3y ago
      Even though there being more people, not because. I'm not claiming causation. However, you need a lot of people to have the advanced economy that makes it possible to invent clean energy.