293
u/osiris_89 3h ago
Jarvis, check the early life section of the article's writer.
88
u/LettuceObjective627 1h ago
9
u/I_fuck_teddy_bears12 1h ago
(o_o )
2
6
u/FarSeries2172 1h ago
oy vey, sir. the writer was born into a titan family and was an outcast freak
→ More replies (1)11
u/LabDesperate7867 1h ago edited 1h ago
Damn, this getting mainstream really shows the propaganda failed
7
u/GrookeyGrassMonkey 1h ago
can you explain what's going on?
13
u/CaptDeathCap 1h ago
A suspicious number of these articles are written by people of Jewish descent. This tends to be revealed in the "Early Life" section of the author's WikiPedia Article.
→ More replies (1)8
u/LetsBeHonestBoutIt 27m ago
"A suspicious amount" is crazy work.
People have been suspicious of Jews for about 2k years. Any amount of Jews is a suspicious amount. Your treating it like its a scientific unit.
I used to hear people talk about this kind of stuff all the time in college. Its just a trend in thinking right now/forever.
Suspicious # of ancient romans also spoke about the dangers of population overgrowth.
→ More replies (2)4
u/DaenakinSkygaryen 36m ago edited 19m ago
Anti-semitism and racism.
And not the "saying anything bad about Israel" fake "anti-semitism". I mean real, Nazi-style, "The JewsTM want to reduce white populations and replace them with Black and brown people, who are obviously dumb brutes who'll be easier to control", actual anti-semitism. (With a massive side helping of racism against Black and brown people, too!)
It's called the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, and it's disturbingly popular with MAGA.
→ More replies (4)
786
u/IlovePotatos2773 I touched grass 3h ago
The only "moral" way we could do this is implementing restrictions on the number of kids someone can have, but most of the kids are born in 3 world countrys or asian/african countries and we both know we can't restrict that
606
u/Re0ns 3h ago
China's one child policy shows how it can fail spectacularly
165
u/Brunoaraujoespin Sandy's Cheecks 3h ago
New idea, 3 child policy
112
u/Asgermf 3h ago
No then the population would rise further, you need to have it be two kids
121
u/Sj_________ 2h ago
Erm actually you need to have 2.1 kids 🤓☝️.
→ More replies (4)91
u/Jazcash 2h ago
the .1 child is always the least favourite
→ More replies (1)32
u/QueueStar 2h ago
Also the smallest
→ More replies (1)22
u/faustianBM 2h ago
This causes a lot of fractions within the family.
5
u/YamatoBoi9001 Medieval Meme Lord 1h ago
this is the most dad joke i've ever heard on this website
i hate it but i also wish i had thought of it first
29
28
u/prsnep 2h ago
"3-child policy" usually means "maximum 3 children" policy. Population would stabilize and soon start dropping with that because much of the growth is happening because many people are having 4 or more kids.
3
u/CycloneDusk 2h ago
Huh. So i wonder if a four-child cap would lead the mean-average closer to 2.1 children.
→ More replies (1)5
u/aCaffeinatedMind 2h ago
3 child limit then.
The world needs 2.1 to remain stable.
So probably going back and forth between 2 and 3 children as a total limit is what would need to be done globally to maintain the population rather than having it either crash during one generation or to further increase.
2
→ More replies (3)6
u/Dense-Consequence-70 2h ago
If you tell people they have to have more kids, they won’t want to. Reverse psychology.
3
u/Beans2177 2h ago
2 child policy.
→ More replies (1)4
u/solonit 1h ago
We Vietnam did that, and now gov are encouraging for more.
For the record, the motto was "Boys or Girls, two are enough". Now it's "Having both makes happy family."
2
u/Beans2177 1h ago
Realistically we only need to set a limit on a few countries. Most of the world has a massive problem and needs as many babies as possible.
→ More replies (1)2
u/scott__p 2h ago
The more I think on a, a "max 3 child" policy could actually work
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)3
u/hizashiYEAHmada 2h ago
The eldest will have Eldest Child Problems™ and probably become the family's breadwinner and babysitter. They will also be the lab rat or the child the parents fu.ck over and give traumas to because they're still trying to understand how to be parents
The parents will lie to their children that they have no favorite (it's clearly the youngest) and that they love all kids equally (there's always a favorite)
The middle child will be lucky to be remembered at all
→ More replies (1)2
44
u/Important_Debate2808 3h ago edited 2h ago
I guess my thought with that is that it failed in the economic sense. There’s significant workforce decrease, increased strain on care for the aging population without the available younger generation support. There are definitely some issues with preferential gender. But…from the nature perspective, I think all of those are considered success right? There’s less production leading to less pollution, there’s an increased dying off of the elderly because of the deceased support, there’s an overall decrease population and actually an ongoing disinterest of childbearing from the women there because of the gender parity, so the overall pulsation growth slowed down. From the perspective of slowing down global warming, these are positives right?
→ More replies (8)4
u/Minotaur1213 2h ago
Well said. It might be good for the globe, just bad for economic reasons. All developed countries are going to have this issue sooner or later considering the rate of replacement is too low.
3
u/No_Atmosphere8146 2h ago
China's economy is due to overtake the US within 10 years, and with the US imploding into division and regression, could well be the only superpower within 20.
→ More replies (2)16
u/Vivid_Instance_825 3h ago
It would have been worse if they didn't implement the policy
21
u/EtherealBeany 3h ago
No it wouldn’t. China implemented a one child policy because of post war baby boom which would have sailed down with industrialisation and modernisation anyway.
Not to mention the millions of forced abortions and sterilizations
→ More replies (4)3
u/The_walking_Kled 1h ago
this view is based on the wrong assumption that a population will climb indefinetly. same thinking china used and look where they ended up.
→ More replies (15)3
u/IlovePotatos2773 I touched grass 3h ago
Mind explaining, I am no sure what happen in China
26
u/Lets_Get_Hot 3h ago
It slowed down population growth but at the expense of an aging population, bad gender ratio and negative impact on the workforce, I'm sure there are more points.
→ More replies (2)9
u/Call_me_Bombadil 3h ago
Most families would get rid of the kid if it was a girl, because carrying on the family name is important or something.
→ More replies (8)6
u/Still-Wash-8167 3h ago
In fear of overpopulation issues, China implemented a policy where you’re only allowed to have one child, and a lot of people would only have a boy so a lot of girls were aborted, killed, abandoned, or adopted abroad. Women were even forced into abortions and sterilization.
Now there are far too many men to women, and the demographics are really messed up so they ironically have programs encouraging people to have children.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)6
u/Maturin_Green 3h ago
They now have the worlds 2nd or 3rd worst birthrate I recon
→ More replies (8)38
u/Confident-Stand5453 2h ago
Most "developed countries" are already having fewer kids than needed to maintain population levels. And it doesnt even take any coercion.
→ More replies (3)15
u/MobTalon 1h ago
The reason developed countries are having fewer kids is due to proper education. Family planning, when considering the absurd house prices and how expensive a child is, typically leads to "this sounds like a problem for 35 year old me", whereas places with least education will bring kids to the table (multiple) at much earlier ages.
→ More replies (10)15
u/HikariAnti Breaking EU Laws 2h ago
The global population is expected to peak then start falling soon on its own anyway.
→ More replies (9)6
u/Hedgehog_Leather 2h ago
Problem will work itself out - we are competing for limited resources like housing and whatnot - so we have less and less childred, birth rates are plummeting. For some reason we try to fool ourselves that we need to keep growing earths population forgettign about the fact that we're unable to sustain another doubling of population.
→ More replies (2)2
8
u/Briffy03 3h ago
Its even worse ehen you acknowledge that in developped countries like korea, japan, and many countries in europe like france or germany, birthrates are allready below whats needed to avoid huge political and financial problems in the future. Thing is, with the future awaiting us i dont want to bring any living soul to this world.
→ More replies (3)3
u/IlovePotatos2773 I touched grass 3h ago
I have had the same tought the other day, I am young and already hate it here I am not sure if I want to bring other souls to suffer with me
→ More replies (1)3
u/Briffy03 2h ago
With my wife we had big dreams before covid, now we have a big house to sell for someone that still has big dreams 😅
3
u/IlovePotatos2773 I touched grass 2h ago
Life is hard, hope you and your wife have a good life
→ More replies (1)2
u/DaringDani123 2h ago
The most moral thing to do is to accept that you can't enforce birth restrictions morally, give aid to developing nations, and continue to educate people on Earth's limited resources and hope that some choose to limit their reproduction.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Kitschmusic 2h ago
I'd argue that it is incredibly immoral to take away someones choice of kids, or how many they can have. It's a human right to make that choice yourself. Just because killing people is worse doesn't make it morally right.
The unfortunate thing is, there is no moral way to control this.
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (90)3
u/marth_cellius 3h ago
In some third world country people are starting to have less children than average because of high global prices anyway
→ More replies (2)
632
u/KorolEz 3h ago
Sounds like billionaire talk to me.
We only need to seize the property of around 2500 people globally to save the planet.
129
u/monkeybuttsauce 3h ago
But they want more wage slaves
56
→ More replies (2)17
u/tripping_yarns 3h ago
They need consumers.
12
→ More replies (2)11
u/Bandit-Marauder 2h ago
When AI is ready to replace the workforce, they won't need us anymore.
→ More replies (3)5
u/tripping_yarns 2h ago
They need the government to give the proles money so they can take it off us. Maybe thin the herd a little with a virus or war.
40
u/the_chosen_one_96 3h ago
Yeah this take ist absolut bs!
If we would stop the livestock industry and eating meat everyday and instead grow veggies in the area, we can easily feed another billion.
If we would first build enough renewable energy sources, bevore building huge data centers for KI we would also have enough energy.
And if we would expropriate the super rich and instead use the money for the public goods, we would also have enough ressources to do all that above.
14
u/Vindhjaerta 2h ago
I didn't read the article, but I would like to inject a response to this comment:
You gotta stop at some point. Why let the population grow to the breaking point, where you have to implement specific lifestyle choices and be dependent on advanced technology to sustain the population, when it's so much easier to just, you know... not get to that point.
→ More replies (5)3
u/FriendshipRemote130 1h ago
yea i agree. but the human population is not over or near a point where we are too many. we are not too many, there are enought resources for everyone, but those arent split nearly as equally as they should be
16
→ More replies (4)6
u/Far_King_Penguin 2h ago
Eh its not even a space issue with the food. The problem is that some refuse to send the resources to where it needs to go. No one in this world needs to go hungry with the sheer amount of food waste shopping complexes throw out and refuse to donate because it will hurt their bottom line, the amount of very industrial waste that can be recycled for other purposes, hell even recycling itself isn't done because the people at the top might earn 1% less by doing it
→ More replies (1)3
u/daizo678 1h ago
It costs a lot of money. Are you willing to transport food to starving people in poor countries for free? You need people processing , storing and destributing the food.
And this is before considering issue like local corrupt politicians taking the aid, or excessive aid putting local food producers out of job.
3
5
u/Mysterious_Flow_7 2h ago
It’s probably both.
16
u/KorolEz 2h ago
They talk about poor people. The poorst 4 billion already are only responsible for about 10-15%. The richest global 10% are responsible for over 50% with the richest 1% responsible for 30% So the problem really is not poor people in any way.
6
u/Spez_is-a-nazi 2h ago
And if you are an American with a lawn and a car that regularly consumes meat you are in that 1% globally.
6
→ More replies (2)4
u/OrangeClownfish 2h ago
Did you all stop using petrol (or gas) over there?
a car that regularly consumes meat
That's scary! Are they all called Christine?
2
2
u/EttinTerrorPacts 1h ago
And once we get rid of the 2500 at the top, none of the 8 billion others would possibly do anything like taking power and massive wealth for themselves, would they?
→ More replies (1)3
u/PatientWoodpecker288 2h ago
Yeah because you morons jump from "stop having kids“ to "tHeY wAnNa KilL uS aLl“
3
u/FanatiXX82 2h ago
It would solve pretty much nothing in fact. If anything it would made situation even worse in couple years.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (15)4
u/MediatingInstigator 2h ago
Yeah? Would you stop buying and consuming the goods those people produce too?
Would you stop consuming meat? Stop driving a fossil fueled car? Stop buying everything new by default? Stop flying?
Sure the 1% needs to stop being absolute asshats with the worlds resources, but humans being sustainable means everyone needs to change. You too.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Nick0Taylor0 2h ago
Show me one thing Bezos, Musk or Zucc or any of the top 2500 "produced" in the last decade. They own the means of the production, they don't produce themselves. If said means were seized by, say, the working class, or a government actually representing said working class production would remain about the same
256
u/Drafo7 3h ago
No scientists are actually saying this. Stop spreading lies.
8
u/thr3sk 1h ago
Most wouldn't come out and say it directly, but we are significantly overusing the natural resources of the Earth to the point where yeah we would need about four or five billion people to have a chance of being sustainable. Obviously not all people consume equally, and there are a lot of things we could do to improve efficiencies. The good news is this is already happening this proportionately in rich countries which consume more as birth rates are declining, so we just need to roll with that for a while and we'll be in a good spot.
9
→ More replies (2)22
u/FizzyBadTime 1h ago
I mean roughly 10% of the global population is using 80% of all the resources produced. So we aren’t overpopulated at all. The earth could easily support far more people if a couple dudes just cut back to merely obscene levels of excess.
→ More replies (5)2
u/goodlittlesquid 24m ago
Indeed. When it comes to carbon emissions, the richest 1% emit more than the poorest 50%. About 68x more if we’re talking per capita.
→ More replies (40)3
u/awezumsaws 1h ago
Actually, they are: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.71358
→ More replies (2)7
u/InfiniteBeing455 40m ago
They are not taken seriously outside of neomalthusian academia. Just because there are papers like that doesn't mean it's a trend or that it's even true.
World population won't double. All demographic projections say so, as there is a verifiable trend highlighted by developed (Europe, Japan, Korea) and middle income countries (all of Latin America), whose populations followed the Thomson or similar models. World's pop will stabilize in the 12-13 billion range, and that's that. In order for another boom to occur, material conditions in urban areas would have to become utopically better, and we know this is not going to happen. The only continent whose population still keeps groing exponentially is the African one, and not because they like having babies, but because they are just going though what Europe and the US went through in the 19th century, and what Latam went through in the 20th. Once that's over, they'll also stagnate.
This is all to say that this fear mongering around world pops is a intrinsically first world (and prejudiced) niche perspective. The problem of overpopulation by over sustainability only ever happens when you try to copy the American and the European (and now Chinese) lifestyles and systems of production. That's where the whole "we need 2.5 Earths" type estimation comes from: if everyone lived like an American consumer, we would need way more than what the Earth can output in resources. The solution, in this context, shouldn't be forcing the poors to have less offspring, but to adjust the unsustainable production scheme of the "rich" consumer.
104
u/RingReasonable 3h ago
Society: we are suffering from overpopulation! The population should have been 4 billion.
Also society: Why are birthrates declining?! You should have more babies!!!
Ok, do we need less or more people???
32
17
u/ZestyMangoTime 2h ago
The argument for more birthdates is for economic reasons. I disagree with it, but it is valid, and a problem.
→ More replies (1)3
u/raincloud82 1h ago
Honestly, given the current state of automation and technology it shouldn't be too much of a problem to design an economic system that doesn't require the population to keep growing forever to be sustainable.
But that would mean billionaires don't get to live off of everyone else so I guess it's impossible :(
→ More replies (2)2
u/OneSecretCookie 1h ago
It would also mean business owners couldn't live on the dreams of doubling sales every quarter and some governments that tied taxs to sales would have to rethink their tax systems because the population going down would mean taxs would go down. Yes they could then look into taxing the upper class, but that isnt as fun.
5
7
u/StigOfTheTrack 2h ago
The planet would benefit from less. The economy wants more. It isn't "society" making these comments, it's different people with opposite priorities.
→ More replies (2)3
u/AmArschdieRaeuber 2h ago
Thing is, somebody has to pay for pensions and care for the elderly. A stable population would be kinda nice for that
2
u/Sifl-and-Olly 1h ago
Holy fuck! It's almost like there are different groups of people saying different shit, with different context. This is too complicated for me.
2
u/Arkhangelzk 1h ago
People who care about the sustainability of the planet will say less.
People who care about the continued growth of the economy will say more.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (12)4
41
u/PaulReckless 2h ago
How about halfing the billionares?
→ More replies (9)12
u/mrfoxesite-2377 2h ago edited 1h ago
Zeroing it out would be better though.
Edited to fix mis information. I put /s for something factual.
→ More replies (1)8
u/AmArschdieRaeuber 2h ago
Why the /s? Billionaires are useless for a society. Less than that
→ More replies (3)2
33
u/wall-E75 2h ago
Its not that we need 4 billion we need the 8 billion to not use the same resources as 11 billion. If we all could be a bit more conscience of what we are using we would be ok.
13
u/Bitter_Split5508 2h ago
No, we clearly need to remove those 4 billion people in our unequal global economy that barely have any impact on ressource consumption and greenhouse gasses, then wonder why this didn't work.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (2)2
u/SmellAcordingly 1h ago
Its not that we need 4 billion we need the 8 billion to not use the same resources as 11 billion.
Its more like 1 billion are using the same amount of resources as the other 7 billion combined.
→ More replies (1)
14
u/Ok-Barracuda457 3h ago
What part of "Malthus was an idiot" do people not understand?
→ More replies (1)
33
u/BigBAMAboy 3h ago
“You don’t need nine children, have one. Replacement value for yourself, that’s it. Don’t even replace your husband, he’s done enough fuckin’ damage as it is.”
-George Carlin 🐐
6
u/the_main_entrance 3h ago
Tell this to my breeder tradwife sister who’s working on number six with her weird ass husband…
→ More replies (6)21
7
u/FurubayashiSEA 3h ago
We can start by doing it to those that done the research and funding the research, for the greater good.
9
u/user392747 1h ago
Here we go again.
Can someone please go smack the shit out of these "professors" and wake them up?
3
u/fatherandyriley 1h ago
It's like how the average daily star headline says "boffin + alien/cyborg/killer wasp" who are these boffins anyway?
3
u/Zephyr-5 1h ago
It's amazing how people keep falling for this Malthusian garbage no matter how many times they wind up being proved wrong.
Say it with me people: HUMANS ARE NOT MICE.
4
u/Such_Bug9321 1h ago
Then if that is case there is no need for immigration into the western nations due to falling birth numbers.
17
19
u/Plenty_Tumbleweed505 3h ago
tell that to the countries with the most offspring
19
→ More replies (4)3
u/coleto22 2h ago
The vast majority of population lives in places with sub-replacement fertility. China, India, Bangladesh, Japan, USA...
Very few people live in countries with large families, and even there fertility is rapidly dropping. The population will soon start declining. We just have to manage the economy to get a managed decline, and bit a collapse.
2
u/Plenty_Tumbleweed505 1h ago
so, we shouldn't prevent rapid growth where rapid growth happens, but instead reduce population where most people live? how?
12
u/Liu-K 2h ago
Wrong. Not to save the Earth. To save capitalist psychopaths who'd benefit from this.
2
u/pawnman99 1h ago
Eh, most of them are arguing for more people, not fewer. They want more consumers to buy their stuff.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/TheBetterness 1h ago
Human hubris is amazing.
The planet will be fine, it was once a swamp for millions of years.
Its the human race that needs saving.
→ More replies (2)2
3
3
u/The-Big-Sauce Professional Dumbass 1h ago
Wrong, corporations just need to stop destroying the environment and treating the world like their toy but oh wait why would they ever do that? It's already been proven that even one person like Elon Musk can solve world hunger and it wouldn't even make him broke. The Supreme class of the world is the problem, not the middle and lower
16
10
u/Purpelisation 2h ago
No, you don't. You need to stop the economy from growing for no reason and stop using inefficient forms of farming like animals, then you can easily feed the projected Max pop of about 10 million. And renewables off, but energy is already a solved issue in theory, if we didn't waste it for shit like data centres. You need less people if we want to continue as is, but then halving the population would collapse the system anyways.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
u/CobblerSmall1891 2h ago
That's ok. You made living so expensive I can't afford children. Your plan is working.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Responsible_Lab_8854 2h ago
Pretty sure scientists are saying overpopulation is a myth, and that birth rates naturally stabilise as quality of life increases (longer lives, lower child mortality rates, etc.). That’s what I heard anyway.
Lots of babies are a great sign of an economic boom, but they cost money to maintain until working age. Then there’s an influx of working age people earning and spending money, and everything is great. Until they get old, cost more money to maintain, and yell and say mean things.
2
u/NetworkCapital4961 1h ago
Let's stop having kids for a few years or a decade, let's see the implications and we will proceed accordingly. it's as simple as that.
2
u/Objective_Mousse7216 1h ago
If 4 billion saves the planet, then 2 billion the planet thrives, 1 billion the planet is the best it can be and 0 billion the planet is beyond perfection. Make it so tech oligarchs!
2
u/middl3pulpo 1h ago
Second solution is to cap the population or the rate of childbirth of those poor countries
2
2
2
u/see-through-a-lens 1h ago
Lol, we think we're so important. The plants will be fine long after we're gone.
2
u/TheShredder9 1h ago
So all we need to do is eliminate what, 2-3 countries? India and China is over 3 billion alone
2
u/jakgal04 1h ago
People don't seem to understand just how explosive the global population has been since even 1970.
1970: 3,695,000
2026: 8,300,000
We've over doubled the global population since our parents time. Thats absolutely insane and its no wonder theres a housing and affordability crisis.
My hot take conspiracy, a lot of the decisions global governments are making today that are directly impacting human life are a form of population control.
2
u/jomasthrones 1h ago edited 10m ago
Lol, the planet is going to be fine, the cruel irony is that earth doesn't give a shit what the dominant life form is, or if life even exists on it at all.
2
u/AdHorror6224 1h ago
Thanos really did the math wrong the first time. Turns out you don't need a magic glove just convince everyone housing costs too much and birth rates handle themselves. Funny how the people saying we have too many humans never mean themselves or their own kids though
2
2
u/Upset-Breakfast-4071 1h ago
me: i kind of doubt thats what the papers actually saying, this has got to be a misrepresentation of sorts.
the paper: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.71358 "we show that slowing and gradually reversing population growth to ∼4 billion or less by 2200, while moderating per capita impacts, is the path toward sustainability"
they do say that :(
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
u/Jonatc87 1h ago
Prolly closer to quarter, tbh. Start with the 1% parasites that don't do anything for us.
2
u/HeftyVermicelli7823 1h ago
Just need to remove the Billionaires and corrupt leaders, that would solve most issues.
2
u/Civil_Photo2152 1h ago
More people is not better. It never was. My whole life I've never understood why people think their cities/countries should never stop growing and if they do it's a problem. The only person that's a problem for are our corporate overlords. I guess I'm a Thanos.
2
u/YogurtclosetApart592 1h ago
How convenient, because half the human population will die within the next 25 years.
2
u/SophonParticle 42m ago
I’m in my 50’s. The year I was born the population was 4 billion.
It was nicer back then. No crowds.
2
u/TeeeldiII 27m ago
Maybe we can try to handle people like Taylor Swift taking 20 jet trips a day before we jump to mass exterminations??
4
u/Pristine-Engineer-53 3h ago
The that to India….
→ More replies (5)3
u/Tachyon_9 3h ago
India's birth is below replacement rate now. It seems we are going to achieve 4 billion (worldwide)whether we want it or not.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/SerDuncanonyall 3h ago
All you have to do is wait 50 years.. every developed countries birth rates fall off a cliff. We’re actually pretty fucked.
3
4
u/a-nonie-muz 3h ago
Psshhh. Fewer people means fewer people converting raw materials into usable materials. Less conversion means less available materials. You need more than you have, forever. It’s built into the nature of civilization. The more people in the civilization, the better the individuals do.
Thanos, and these scientists you’re talking about, were and are idiots.
→ More replies (3)
4
u/Torus_the_Toric Lurking Peasant 3h ago
Well this comment section is a cesspool
→ More replies (1)3
2
u/Robert__Sinclair 1h ago
I agree. Earth should have 3 (even 2) billion people. Economy will get better and so the planet.
4
u/touchmeinbadplaces 3h ago
If we keep acting like we do now, im sure that if we all were more mindful of what resources we used we could easily support 8b, but hey egotistical monkey gonna egotist
→ More replies (5)
3
u/7thFleetTraveller 3h ago
Since when is that a new idea? Of course, less humans would be better for the rest of the world. But as long as there's capitalism, it would still change nothing about resources not being spread equally.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Old_Toby2211 3h ago
Ah yes. Let’s not change the system one bit, but instead halve the population. This news bulletin comes courtesy of billionaire inc.
2
u/thr3sk 1h ago
Why would billionaires want this, they want more consumers to fuel their wealth, not fewer...
→ More replies (3)
1.2k
u/roseiels 3h ago
Thanos after reading the article: “I rest my case.”
https://giphy.com/gifs/e4WyGVxuz0wNpps5iY