this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
515 points (94.3% liked)
Asklemmy
43371 readers
1714 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In order to actually fight climate change, we should start by trying to reduce the population in the future. Less people = more resources per person.
Or to make it even unpopular.... A massive genocide would help the planet immensely
Of the rich? I'm in.
Unfortunately, there's not enough of them even 8f they do disproportionately more harm.
How do you choose who gets genocided?
Obviously we kill all the people that think genocide would be a good thing. I can't imagine a better future with all these maniacs among us!
Random, Thanos docet
My version of this is to just sterilize 99% of the population at random, and keep sterilizing people in the future such that the world population is capped at 100 million.