6 ms·
You clearly didn’t even look at the article, because it’s not at all about climate change
by DandyDev 3y ago
You clearly didn’t even look at the article, because it’s not at all about climate change
- Zetobal 3y agoYeah, maybe not all of the article but it still is. Pro life ass propaganda without scientific merit.
- bamboozled 3y agoPopulation is separate to climate change.
- sitkack 3y agoGiven your submission history of climate articles, you are going to argue that neither has a direct affect on the other?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Zetobal 3y agoThey are still talking about it in both articles on the frontpage including this shitty one. wtf is wrong with you all telling me to read the article without reading it yourself?
- bamboozled 3y agoThey mention climate change, the article isn't about climate change. There is nothing in there about population control. I think you read the first paragraph, got outraged and commented angrily.
- Zetobal 3y agoNo, it's just that they are more correlated than your now-deleted "if we just go nuclear it's all going to be fine" fever dream comment.
- bamboozled 3y agoI repeat, the article isn't about climate change.
- isthatafact 3y agoI think it is. The entire premise of the article (as it seems to me) is to not worry about climate change and limited resources because adding more people will result in solutions to those problems. Unfortunately, there is no evidence given -- just intellectual babble. The fact that food production has increased enough to allow most of us to survive so far does not imply that an increasing population can be indefinitely supported.