Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media posts
Avoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
Unpopular truth: We don't need 8 billion humans. We don't even need 1 billion. Not for a terrestrial species occupying only one planet.
Ideally, the global population would stay about the same, but slowly rise and fall in seasons like the temperature.
This is a windfall that we should use to sort out the food distribution problem. But we won't.
We don’t need any humans.
Who gets to decide which humans get to reproduce and who doesn’t?
I'll take care of it
Thanks frunch
I hope he's not fr*nch
Well, an aptitude test sure wouldn't hurt.
The truth is, once we outgrow the religious imperative to just crank out babies like it's a contest, and make it legal and easy for anyone to have sex without worrying about impregnation, then there would be little need to regulate reproduction.
So... You're a eugenicist..
Wow. Which one of you asshats downvotes this?
Eugenics is some evil bullshit. We figured this out around 1935-1945.
Bodily autonomy for all.
The ones who would fail a test to determine if they are mentally prepared for the responsibility of raising a child.
The ones who think that determining if someone would make a good parent (which is done to everyone with wants to adopt) is the same thing as eugenics.
It's not really about who gets to reproduce, it's about infant mortality.
Pre-1900 there were just around a billion people, yet it was very common to have 7-10 children. Most didn't make it to reproductive age, so the population wasn't growing at that same rate.
Now infant mortality is low, very low in developed countries, yet it is still common to have 4-6 children. Nearly all of whom will reproduce.
Realisticly, no one needs more than one children. Two would be generous. More than two is excessive.
That's certainly not going to be abused in horrific ways.
It doesn't need to be forced. All that's needed is education and easy access to birth control. There's a reason birthrates are declining in virtually all developed countries. When given a real, educated choice, the vast majority of women choose to have fewer children.
no one needs more than one children
So... this is how it ends. Some predicted a virus, a climate change related natural disaster or an asteroid. But what finally got us, was some bad math.
Enshrine medical rights for women's bodies that allows them to abort pregnancy, and allows doctors to make that decision for them in case of early complication leading to emergency (a conscious woman not at risk would never be forced to accept treatment that would endanger a viable fetus, but a nonviable fetus would never lead to undue risks in a more ideal world than what we live in).
We'll start with a democratic system of laws with a philosophy of marginal satisfaction offset by an aversion to suffering taking priority, a good first step would be to simply incentivize education and remaining childless, perhaps with tax credits or guaranteed income welfare.
Introducing or reintroducing publicly funded community buildings for education on human reproduction and a distributor of contraceptives.
Then, if the majority agrees, we can strip felons of reproduction rights with the outlined and protected by law ability to sue the state in assumption of prejudice based on protected class. Finally, punish people with excessive childbirthing habits, like more than five or six, perhaps with fines and risk of prison time as well as a three strike system for upgrading to felony.
Or at least that is usually how it works. Definitely cannot skip the order in this, though, the education step needs to come first or second and could probably solve this issue alone single-handedly. If we implemented this in reverse order then it would probably just end up in history books thirty years from now as "that time we almost lost entire demographics to racist eugenics" and that would just be awful.
We must all come to a consensus on how it is decided or overpopulation will diminish the resources needed to survive
meh. theres no need for any humans to exist.
i seem to recall that you could fit 8billion people into a single city double the size of texas. you could then feed those humans with an equivalent land mass.
this notion of overpopulation is more about resource use than existent numbers of humans. as you point out, distribution is the real issue and the fact that humans are greedy fuckers.
the planet doesnt care if its hit by a meteor, has its surface wiped by an expanding red dwarf or falls into jupiter. it has no agenda or purpose other than what we, humans decide to do with it. we only get that honor because we are the only ones here.
I'm speaking from the context of human survival. I support the continued existence of the human race. You're speaking from a more nihilistic standpoint than I prefer, but i do agree with what you said in general.
Though, forcing everyone to live in DoubleTexas sounds like hell on Earth.
speaking from the context of human survival
Woahhh no need to bring your controversial opinions in here.
I for one would like to here more about DoubleTexas the megatropolis
i seem to recall that you could fit 8billion people into a single city double the size of texas
Do you want Mega-City One? Because that’s how you get Mega-City One.
the point isnt the megacity. its to draw attention to the fact the planet is bigger than we think, and we suck more than we know.
Do you even know what the word "unpopular" means?
For once, a good news.
So what I'm hearing is the billionaire class is a literal plague.
That is the source/cause of nearly every problem we have , yes
The only correct analysis of the situation
Also the ruling class
“In many ways, tumbling fertility rates are a success story, reflecting not only better, easily available contraception but also many women choosing to delay or have fewer children, as well as more opportunities for education and employment.”
After listening to Malthusian panic from "conservatives" for over 50 years, I savour the irony.
It's not even conservatives, there are some doomers who get off being excessively pessimistic. r/collapse used to be hysterical about overpopulation. When I showed them the video of late statisticians Hans Rosling showing trend data of declining fertility rate, thanks to growing wealth of developing countries, and why their fears are unfounded, they just brushed it off. It is in recent years when mainstream news finally started reporting declining fertility rate and the UN project the global population to plateau, r/collapse finally stopped being hysterical on the topic.
Those twits are at best closet conservatives.
Good. Now if only we could get the wealthy and powerful to switch to a form of economy which prioritizes stability over infinite growth.
Housing is gonna get cheaper, right? right?!
If you can wait 25 years.
Regionally, whenever buildings are build to last the lifetime of more then 1 generation and with a population age curve that is top heavy at this time.
With how unaffordable life is in general, it’s not exactly surprising that people are having fewer kids. They’re a giant drain on your already scarce resources.
Frankly I was also hoping for corona to… do a little housekeeping as it were. But it didn’t really do much in terms of actual population decline.
There are huge inneficiencies in the labor market that, if corrected, would allow a lot more people to live comfortably. There are a large number is companies that don't deserve to exist, let alone waste people's talent and abilities on complete nonsense.
ITT blue pilled malthusians
Good, about time
My grandparents came over after world war 2, with my grandfather barely speaking any English. He got a job as a busboy and could afford to rent a house and have my grandma raise my mom and uncle (and my aunt, later) while he worked.
10 years or so ago, he lamented how nobody was having kids like they used to. I asked him to repeat his situation when he got here, then explained to him that my wife and I barely have enough to pay our mortgage and have some fun while we both work full time, with no kids.
We’re actually doing fine financially now, but the window for kids passed. Even if it were still a possibility, I’m not sure I even would. Just so I can raise some wage slaves to keep this klepto-plutocracy alive and well? Nah, fuck that.
I'm never having kids unless a few things that aren't going to improve, actually improve.