So was this Elon who funded this study or Peter Thiel?
How about banning private jets first? And then stop subsidizing meat production? Then stop building cities around cars. Tax the production of plastic, to reduce the use of it.
Study shows it’s actually the massive corporate conglomerates that do exponentially more damage to the Earth than the entire animal kingdom combined, humans included.
Reduce your carbon footprint is a Big Oil created PR campaign. It places the “climate crisis” blame on the individual consumer.
Malthusianism is fascist bullshit. Who has to go? This will be used for genocide if we allow any “there’s simply too many people” narrative to subvert climate discourse.
We can feed, clothe and shelter everyone easily and comfortably. But we can’t all have the luxuries of the most wealthy. Tough shit. That doesn’t mean poor people having children has anything to do with our situation
No one says to kill people. We can easily do this by reducing birth rate.
No one says to kill people yet
It will always be some kind of “them” who should do that, never the “us”. And what about rich people? Are they bound by the same rules or only in theory?
Well I don’t have kids so I’m already part of the solution. I’m already committed to being child free
People already don’t want kids. Cause of capitalism and sexism.
But it doesn’t hurt for people to have better access to contraceptives.
Safe abortions.
And to make adoption easier and more socially promoted.
You probably don’t want children. For people who do, this is an enormous sacrifice I wouldn’t ask of anyone. Just because of the comfort and luxury of developed nations, other people are somehow the problem. And not to mention it opens the door to fascists with specific ideas to cull the population
When did I say we should restrict people from having kids. ?
I offered other solutions to the problem.
All of those solutions would be voluntary.
They are not solutions, that’s where you’re dead wrong
I think you don’t understand how social services work.
Making contraceptives more accessible does in fact reduce pregnancy . There is a ton of research on this.
Secondly, making adoption more socially acceptable and easier would encourage people to adopt.
Cultural ideas and misconceptions about children often make people discount this adoption both as an option for persons giving up baby and potential parents who could adopt.
Meanwhile, in my country, the US government gives tax credits for children. No kids? No tax credits.
So you’re saying reducing the proliferation of a virus can help the organic body it’s attacking?
That’s fascinating.
I hope when it’s my turn they do it quickly.
So let’s extrapolate here. Getting rid of all humans would help the earth even more? Sounds about right.
Thanos enters the room.
My god, thanos is right
Study reveals that humans are the main cause of human-caused environmental effects.
I am not particularly sympathetic, but there is a group that takes this quite seriously:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT[A]) is an environmental movement that calls for all people to abstain from reproduction in order to cause the gradual voluntary extinction of humankind. VHEMT supports human extinction primarily because it would prevent environmental degradation.
Scientists argue that the indiscriminate use of Earth’s resources by humans has led to environmental effects, ranging from biodiversity loss to climate change.
Motherfuckers will find it easier to imagine genociding half of humanity than ending capitalism.
Lol, what do you think indiscriminate use of resources is? That’s literally capitalism!
Unless you’re an ecofascist neonazi, in which case the same phrase gets interpreted as “use of resources by the wrong kind of people”.
According to me, the wrong kind of people are the chuds, billionaires, the tech broligarchs and Neo Nazis and maga chuds and other far right extremists
So yeah, maybe we should kill those people
Genocide is unneeded. Population levels decline naturally as people urbanize. Just keep moving people into cities and industrializing farming and the problem will solve itself.
Not with capitalism. Look at countries that do not take in many immigrants. South Korea and Japan are the results of what you’re talking about.
It’s not just about industrialization. The exploitation of labor under capitalism still requires bodies to build its alter. The contradictions of capitalism are the primary problem. Value comes from labor. The profits of capital come from labor. They don’t want “less people”. They just want you to hate other workers and see them as “the problem”.
They will get less labor whether they want it or not. They are banking on being able to fill it in with AI.
Not at all. AI is primarily a tool for domestic surveillance and war. AI cannot produce surplus value to be extracted for profit. They aren’t trying to replace workers with AI. At least not in the long term.
Maybe it’s a fantasy but if they could replace humans with machines that never bargained and went on holiday, they would in a heartbeat. And that’s what they want to do. Maybe they will fail, maybe the technology will develop. It can do many things today that it couldn’t so a few years ago. It’s already solved more difficult mathematical proofs than any human alive today for example.
Yeah, that’s not true. The math proofs it has solved are not “more difficult than any solved by a living person”. Many of the proofs AI has solved are corner case conditions that are not being actively worked on by mathematicians. In a trivial example. Image a problem like:
x = n + 25AI says, hey, let’s assume n=3.
AI solved the proof that
3 + 25 = 28.Then we get an article posted about how AI solved the impossible problem of
n + 25Now, it can be helpful to have these less general proofs solved. It can help mathematicians in creating a more general proof (what they are usually focused on).
But, as far as I’m aware, these are most of the contributions of AI so far in the field of mathematics. You’re falling for the hype around it. It’s mostly filling in gaps for corner cases that are not actively being worked on.
Which makes sense. Because it’s just a text generation algorithm that predicts the most likely characters. It’s using training data for the
n = 3case that it learned from another already solved problem and then injecting it into the unsolved problem. Sometimes is spits out something that makes sense, a human being has to verify it, and then a corner case for mathematical proof is “solved”.It’s not capable of thinking or rationalizing to anything new. It is filling in gaps in a field of research that is not primarily focused on “gap filling”.
It’s why it’s “having success” in Math but not Physics. Mathematicians focus on general proofs that apply under all conditions. So, the field inevitably has a lot of problems that could be solved by a lot of brute force for specific conditions.
In Physics, scientist are constantly trying to “fill gaps”. They work with real world measurements and observations. Any new “gap” is constantly being tested. AI has no gaps to fill with its brute force way of “thinking”. And it’s completely incapable of coming up with theories or hypothesis on a level a human does.
This is why it’s not solving ground breaking mathematics proofs and why it is mostly useless in replacing humans in the scientific process. Because it isn’t actually thinking.
Sorry, rant. But this is something that bothers me and you hit a nerve.
Sorry the wording of that phrase was too ambiguous. I meant it had solved more proofs than any human had in their lifetime, and those were at least difficult enough to stump humans for years or decades. I didn’t mean that they were more difficult than proofs that humans had solved, simply that the AI had solved a higher quantity of them, and that, on average, they would be considered difficult. At least difficult enough to stump humans for a pretty good stretch of time.
Well, noone needs to get genocide, just stop making more
Oh you mean eugenics and reproductive control. Yea, also genocidal.
Dude, chill.
There is nuance between eugenics and forced births.
Jfc, I’m not castrating anyone, just asking nicely - consider not making more. Maybe 8 billion is plenty.
Cool. You can “say that”. But that doesn’t happen. People have kids.
Come up with one idea or policy that actually results in people having less children? Because that’s what the comment you replied to is saying. They are talking about the inevitable policies that come from the “just have less” ideas.
The idea is pointless if it just lives in your head. Would be great if everyone that read this comment gave me $1. But no one’s gonna do that unless I actually had a reason for them to. The reasons to place on people to have less children either don’t work or are human rights violations.
You sound like the dumb “smart guy” that says “we could have world peace if everyone just smoked weed everyday”.
You don’t solve something by coming up with a solution with no means of reaching it. Hell, it’s not really a solution, it’s just a conclusion. It’s why the “population problem” is so good for propaganda. It redirects the problem and distracts stupid people that haven’t actually thought through how that would work.
The plan here is women’s education and access to contraceptives. These 2 things very consistently cause a significant decline in fertility rates. To the point that leaders across the globe are shitting their pants over it.
Consider that ~50% of births globally are from unplanned pregnancies. Prevention of those can do a lot of heavy lifting.
Probably need to direct this to the people in India and china who hold 1/4 of the worlds population
Capitalism is what paid for them to do the study in the first place.
Absolutely! Famously non capitalist countries have no capability of funding studies. Nope. Hell, we’d never have gotten the first satellite or first person into space without capitalism! Everything good comes from capitalism! And everything bad, yeah, it’s socialism. And if it’s REALLY bad, it’s communism.
I was under the impression non capitalist countries never existed after its invention. At least, thats what I’m told by communists any time I criticize a “communist” country.
Communism is, by definition, “a classless, moneyless, stateless society”.
When people say “no communist countries have existed” this is what they mean. Because that’s not ever been achieved.
There are countries that are run by communist parties (China). But these are not countries that have “obtained Communism”. You are confused because you never looked up the definition of a communist society.
For example, China is a country run by the Chinese Communist Party under a state structure of Socialism (with Chinese characteristics).
Since you don’t understand basic definitions I doubt that you’re criticisms of “communist countries” were very insightful.
What do you mean? I’m pretty dumb so typing slowly would help. If good things happen it can be attributed to communist leadership but if bad things happen its still capitalisms fault? Cuz that’s what it sounds like.
Economist Richard Wolff has a lot of material on YouTube that explains the differences between Capitalism and Socialism as a mode of production, in addition to how this relates to how China’s economy differs from those like America. Assuming you are genuinely interested in learning more
I read one of his books when I was in college. It had to have been “Democracy at Work”, based on the dates of his publications. I strongly believe he frames idealistic, unrealistic arguments. Each premise I’ve heard presented also depends solely on all members of society being highly altruistic, especially those given the discretion to regulate. He also tends to completely ignore the consistant abuse of power and individual consequence associated with every iteration of attempted communism. Including current regimes. Granted, you could argue that’s an issue with hierarchical structures. Something I think must exist to an extent. I’m not a total free market guy at all. I think a balance of socialist legislature and open market would lead to the best quality of life for the largest amount of humans. Specifically, comprehensive healthcare, housing, education and access to clean food and water. All should be available at little to no cost. I don’t see that being a pie in the sky impossiblity, like trying to force implementation of communism. I found far more agreeable information in “Road to Serfdom” by Hayek. It’s also completely possible for communist groups to exist within capitalist states. The opposite is not possible. Individual choice isn’t a luxury afforded.
Slowly Narrow Approved Population (SNAP)
Get the population downd to around 35,000 and we can all go to the superbowl. 24 of us even get to play!
I’d like to volunteer to start the list with about a hundred people we can get rid of right now.
The president of the United States of America beat you to it.
