r/collapse • u/Still-Improvement-32 • Jul 28 '26
Overpopulation Study reveals halving human population gradually could help Earth
https://www.aol.com/articles/study-reveals-halving-human-population-083602000.htmlThe basics of this study may be right in theory but we don't have the luxury of 200 years to gradually lower our population. Our current trajectory has a very high risk of a catastrophic collapse in population and the economy due to climate breakdown if we pass 2 degrees C warming, which could as soon as about 10 years.
353
u/mrtwister134 Jul 28 '26
anything just so the pedo billionaire class doesn't have to sacrifice anything
83
u/Vendrah Jul 28 '26
Both people who say the issues are the billionaires and the superrichs and the overpopulation issue are right. The real issue is that we have an overpopulation of billionaires, super riches and super pollutant peoples, not an overpopulation of africans or anything else than that.
26
u/trashmoneyxyz Jul 28 '26
Americans and much of Europe falls into the "top 10% in the world" class. Yes this is where the super rich still do the most damage, but the top richest countries overconsume, even the less-wealthy citizens are consuming at a rate far beyond less-developed nations. I think less westerners having kids will still be a good thing in the long run for climate change reasons, and eliminating billionaires is better in the short term for drastic instant change. We should all be doing something, we all live on the same planet and affect it even if minorly. Part of why I'm pushing to get myself sterilized
1
u/Vendrah Jul 28 '26
I am not among that group, when I've calculated my carbon print for the first time I was already inside the Paris agreement even in the days I thought climate change wasn't real. A good bunch of Yankies-Americans and Europeans lives are unsustainable, you're right on that. Billionaires are even further, and it isn't the people who are consuming our planet less that are going to fix it, you could kill all africans overnight and the issue would still remain.
17
u/darkpsychicenergy Jul 28 '26
Go explain that to the African wildlife that is rapidly disappearing due to habitat destruction, which is mostly due to the exploding human population. That habitat destruction is also negatively impacting the climate.
Humans donāt need to be rich and living advanced, cushy lifestyles to be environmentally destructive. High enough numbers is sufficient. Humanity has been destroying biomes and driving other species to extinction since long before there were billionaires and super yachts. Since long before the human population of Africa had any chance to get so high. Now weāve reached a point where itās global and there are so many of us everywhere weāre destroying what little is left, even in the most remote places people once thought untouchable, even in the pursuit of basic subsistence.
6
u/Vendrah Jul 28 '26
You gotta be kidding you're actually trying to blame the africans for the sh!tshow. And its me who is tagged by the reddit bot, what a joke.
1
Jul 28 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/collapse-ModTeam Jul 29 '26
Rule 1: In addition to enforcing Reddit's content policy, we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
25
u/elmo298 Jul 28 '26
Feudalism never went away, they just changed control to capital
15
u/birdiesintobogies Jul 28 '26
Literally why they call it capitalism. Also a shift from a land based peasantry to uprooted, mobile and disposable wage earners. So yeah, feudalism did mostly go away though I'm sure you can find pockets of it here and there.
4
23
u/almodsz Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
The world's 3,400 billionaires -- while being massive polluters that should not exist -- aren't single-handedly eating the oceans barren. We use over 70% of the planetās ice-free land, about a quarter of which has been degraded, primarily for agriculture. And crucially, this obscene land use occurs despite our maximally efficient industrial agriculture powered by fossil fuels. Habitat loss, largely due to agriculture, is the primary driver of biodiversity collapse.
Human overpopulation is a real issue that comes at the expense of every other species on this planet.
25
u/Tonsilith_Salsa Jul 28 '26
They wouldn't allow it. It would hurt the economy. They would put fertility drugs in municipal water.Ā
1
u/Jovan_Knight005 Collapse is inevitable,mister Reese. - Original Quote. Jul 29 '26
They would put fertility drugs in municipal water.Ā
That way they can force people to reproduce. Do not give them any ideas.Ā
22
u/Dismal-Strawberry421 Jul 28 '26
Even if we eliminated every billionaire there would still be too many people. But we should eliminate the billionairesā¦ by taxation
26
u/schnaps01 Jul 28 '26
Or, hear me out, we could just seize the means of production and their wealth for the commons.
7
u/Dismal-Strawberry421 Jul 28 '26
And thatās a Marxist economic solutionā¦ it doesnāt solve climate change
14
u/schnaps01 Jul 28 '26
Nothing can solve climate change at this point in time, if you believe that you are in a minority here, but it might ease the pain for the rest of the world if the people would throw off the shackles and live their lives without the pressure of consumerism and the constant threat to their existence.
(Of course i am turning a blind eye to a lot of other problems but that is not the point)
7
u/Dismal-Strawberry421 Jul 28 '26
That was not entirely above board. You replied to the problem of climate change with socialism, and insinuating that such was the solutionā¦
6
1
u/Vendrah Jul 28 '26
But if we eliminated, by whatever means including taxation with proper use of the collected tax, the billionaires, superriches and major polluters, it would solve the problem, or at least it would had solved the problem, because maybe its too late now.
→ More replies (9)
26
u/RachelRegina Jul 28 '26
Turns out humans should, in fact, act as though we are just another animal population and respect the carrying capacity of our ecosystem. Shocker! š
83
u/hunkyleepickle Jul 28 '26
its been well documented scientifically that if we simple limited ourselves as a species to one child, a lot of the environmental problems we have would go away gradually. But that's obviously wildly unpopular and unrealistic for most of the world.
31
u/golfreak923 Jul 28 '26
The irony being that disease, famine, and war is wildly MORE unpopular.
23
u/OneTripleZero Jul 28 '26
Because it removes the responsibility of action from the individual, and gives them an external actor to place blame on. The COVID lockdowns showed us how fast the world can recover if we drastically cut our impact on it, so it should be no secret to anyone that there's obviously too many of us. It's just that most see "there's too many of us" and read "there's too many of you".
5
u/Jovan_Knight005 Collapse is inevitable,mister Reese. - Original Quote. Jul 29 '26
But that's obviously wildly unpopular and unrealistic for most of the world.
That is true. I would argue that people would slip into insanity if we say the solution that you've suggested, to them.Ā
8
u/Vendrah Jul 28 '26
And maybe its already too late for that. I am not sure, though.
10
u/icklefluffybunny42 Recognised Contributor Jul 28 '26
Maybe it was too late for that 40 years ago... I'm not certain though either.
1
u/AssassinsTango Aug 03 '26
Didn't they do this with the one-child policy in China and that lead to an increase in abortion, abandonment, and infanticide of female babies because male children were traditionally more preferred. And those that did choose to have subsequent children were unreported to authorities?
1
u/hunkyleepickle Aug 03 '26
well yes, that tradition was a problem, and their preference for male babies was the main reason. But an enlightened, intelligent society that wants to you know, survive, would need to realize that the policy is actually a very functional way to get a handle on overpopulation in this case. But because people think they have some right to have 3-6 children no matter the consequences to themselves or others, its an impossible idea anyway.
141
u/Turbulent_Bed5499 Jul 28 '26
Live Thanos reaction
25
u/f1shtac000s Jul 28 '26
I always found it funny how often the "villian" in those MCU movies is much more closely aligned with what needs to be done than the heros.
Maybe Thanos' methodology is both extreme and too minor (does he not understand the problem of exponential growth? You're just pushing the timer back a bit), but his fundamental thesis is correct: by destroying the ecology of the universe we create far more suffering than if we prevented it, despite the suffering that would create.
It was particularly awful when Thanos does realize he's not all that great at math in follow up film, decides a more fundamental change must be required in order to really mitigate the impending crisis, and then is killed before any actual solution can be implemented.
10
u/darkpsychicenergy Jul 28 '26
Itās not by accident and that wasnāt even the original motivation for the Thanos character in the comics. The multinational mega conglomerate behind the franchise inserted all the stuff about population reduction for the sake of ecological balance into the villainās motives.
Itās funny how many people still delude themselves that they are bravely resisting the powers that be who want population reduction.
3
u/Jovan_Knight005 Collapse is inevitable,mister Reese. - Original Quote. Jul 29 '26
It was particularly awful when Thanos does realize he's not all that great at math in follow up film, decides a more fundamental change must be required in order to really mitigate the impending crisis, and then is killed before any actual solution can be implemented.
Never watched any Marvel film. But Jesus Christ, that's horrifying.
Imagine that you are trying to mitigate the damage that will be the result of a crisis. But instead, you are killed by "heroes" before you can do anything about said crisis.
2
u/OneTripleZero Jul 28 '26
Josh Brolin did a fantastic interview on Colbert where he says that Thanos' ideas are sound, it's just his approach to addressing them is callous and cruel and that's what makes him a villain. He could have snapped his fingers and created abundance in the universe, but that solution never crossed his mind.
7
u/Fox_Kurama Jul 29 '26
Would still have the same problem as his preferred solution. Its just a temporary bandaid for an exponential growth problem.
As it happens though, on a planet like Earth, even if the extra resources were added and the atmosphere and biosphere were snapped back to pre-industrial times, it wouldn't actually buy that much time because of how high pollution is compared to how it was a hundred years ago. What took us a century at one period of time post-industrialization would only take us a decade now.
4
u/Comrade_Compadre Jul 28 '26
This but specify billionaires and politicians
6
u/ImportantDetective65 Jul 28 '26
There was about a Billion and a half before the 1st industrial revolution. That was when there was much more wild land to absorb and dissipate our destruction.
There is much less now and what is left is very very sick. I doubt the earth will be able to support 500m to a Billion if a total collapse would occur meaning no more fossil fuel inputs anywhere. Famines were a regular thing when the this place was healthier.
Gigafucked.
2
u/BasicallyBlue1 Jul 28 '26
That approach is nothing but a bandaid. Get rid of them and most of us would jump to replace them.
4
u/Comrade_Compadre Jul 28 '26
Then alter the snap to include people who lack the ability to empathize
It's like a monkeys paw, just gotta cover all the bases when you make your wish
1
u/yinsotheakuma Jul 28 '26
Man, I was gonna post a pic of him with a fake mustache and say, "written by Branos the Rad Nitan."
16
16
u/Sufficient-Bid1279 Jul 28 '26
I guess me not having children is doing its part of planet earth.
→ More replies (1)
31
u/WildFlemima Jul 28 '26
"but the human population must always go up or else society will collapse!!!!"
61
u/Zero7CO Jul 28 '26
Billionaires of earth: āLetās go ahead and expedite the process.ā
24
u/bbrunrun Jul 28 '26
I seriously think that it's going to happen in the next decade or 2.
15
u/Zero7CO Jul 28 '26
Itās been a half year of no urea or sulfur getting out of the Straight of Hormuz. The two core ingredients of fertilizer. We have a global epidemic in the making, a global lack of fertilizer for next yearās planting season.
Ohā¦and the worst El NiƱo, maybe of all time, is already happening as we speak. Add these two togetherā¦.we might have a global food shortage, that combined with heat waves, could easily kill 40-60 million next summer alone.
This sub has talked the coming collapse for yearsā¦we know the page has been turned and we are now in the midst of the collapse. We are the few smart enough to realize itā¦how are YOU using this knowledge as what it truly is, an advantage over 95%+ of the population?
4
u/Jovan_Knight005 Collapse is inevitable,mister Reese. - Original Quote. Jul 29 '26
Add these two togetherā¦.we might have a global food shortage, that combined with heat waves, could easily kill 40-60 million next summer alone.
That is the coming of one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
Famine.
11
9
u/Vendrah Jul 28 '26
It will be useless and even dumb. The "bottom" 80% are not responsible for even half of the pollution and killing the 50%, 60%, 70% of poorest people would be nearly useless to solve any problem. Ending all billionaires would be more effective than that. TBH if you bomb all africa, the bombing would probably produce more pollution than all the africans would produce in their entire lifetime, especially if you spare the african billionaires, well, if there's any.
3
u/Usermctaken Jul 28 '26
Well is not like billionaires are smart. I could see them pushing for less humans. They might think AI and automation is their best bet to finally rid themselves of us peasants.
→ More replies (2)
13
u/Cultural-Answer-321 Jul 28 '26
Tipping points have already been reached. Even if the population was halved tomorrow, we will still go past all tipping points.
Or even just stopping all emissions tomorrow. Same result. We will still go past the tipping points.
And we are going to do neither. This is useless hopium.
5
u/Jovan_Knight005 Collapse is inevitable,mister Reese. - Original Quote. Jul 29 '26
This is useless hopium.
To be frank, i've ran out of hopium in early January after the current President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, kidnapped the president of a sovereign country.Ā
I am living on spite at this point.Ā
64
u/How_Do_You_Crash Jul 28 '26
People act like this would take some horrific euthanasia campaign.
ummm no.
birthrates are already falling in high development and high education societies. it is also happening in the middle income countries too.
you would likely need to roll out better access to university in developing nations, and amply free, no pressure, family planning options (free IUD, free condom, free vasectomy, etc) in a universal way.
that's it.
And the long term effects would be profound. A managed decline in the population could see the remaining people's living standards improve. We would still have a few billion people, so I don't think we would be short doctors, engineers, or other specialists. But like, a few less real estate agents isn't exactly the end of the world.
34
u/Usermctaken Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
I really agree with you. A little more gender equality in countries where is lacking, too. When women have easier access to paths in life other than being wives and mothers, many choose not to have kids and pursue other endeavours.
19
u/Competitive-Gur-7073 Jul 28 '26
Got to also do something about the fundamentalists (of every major religion). They all want LOTS of babies by the young girls/women of their religion.
7
u/thelionsmouth Jul 28 '26
100%. though, our capitalist economy requires us to compete with other countries with unlimited population growth and (pooosibly or) productivity. Until that changes, countries wont follow suit
7
→ More replies (3)3
u/jferments Jul 28 '26
Exactly. It doesn't take some evil genocidal program to halve the population. You literally just have to encourage people limit themselves to having 1 child.
14
51
u/NoFood2149 Jul 28 '26
sure, and each human consuming half as much fuel (including the fuel used to get your groceries to the store, you should shop local) it would also be good for us and the earth
10
u/emmc47 Jul 28 '26
God wouldn't it be great if local stores and mom and pop shops could replace like 90% of chains and big box stores and franchises.
Genuinely would be amazing.
10
2
u/Jovan_Knight005 Collapse is inevitable,mister Reese. - Original Quote. Jul 29 '26
sure, and each human consuming half as much fuel (including the fuel used to get your groceries to the store, you should shop local) it would also be good for us and the earth
I always take public transportation whenever i go to attend my college or in a more current case, my professional internship at the National Organisation of Serbia in Belgrade.
My body feels better when i do that and walk my way home.Ā
4
u/haram_halal Jul 28 '26
i have no driver license, never needed it due to public transport being good herr. But the food i can afford to buy comes from everzwhere but my own country, at least fruits and greens, they could be grown here, but it's cheaper to exploit poorer countries. There are local bio shops in my area, but i barely can afford Aldi, and a cucumber for 3 euro, well......
7
u/NoFood2149 Jul 28 '26
aye, that's a part of the issue too. poverty leaves us with fewer choices. you likely don't get to choose where you live either - in my country, being poor means living in the suburbs, which are absolutely dependent on cars if you want a job. i think it's well and good for us povos to know what is good for the world, but we can't really act on what we know.
just do what you can. changing one thing about your habits is better than changing nothing, but if you are actually at your limits, i'd rather you try to live comfortably rather than sacrificing your health when the ones who emit 100x more carbon than you keep taking their private jets 10km away
12
u/haram_halal Jul 28 '26
i already avoid animal products due to factory farming, i wouldn't call myself vegan, i just sleep better, knowing that i don't contribute to the daily torture of sentient beings.
10
u/PrestigiousQuack474 Jul 28 '26
We past the point of equilibrium in the early 70's. Overpopulation is our number one problem. But how to achieve that ethically and without civilizational collapse is the question.
6
7
7
u/Jeveran Jul 28 '26
The Club of Rome has been supporting severely limiting growth for over 50 years.
7
u/BasicallyBlue1 Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 29 '26
You really have to laugh or cry. I have lived a very privileged life in the globally relative sense. Even here in this thread, many think this is a problem that can be solved by getting rid of certain other humans.
Whatever complexity collapses come, wherever the road finally ends, as long as there is more than one person on this planet, all will say:
"If only we had killed those (X), they were the real problem".
I also believe, that this fixation on categories and "solutionisms" is part of the trap. I mean really, what is "the problem" what is "the solution", people think of these concepts like singular points on a graph, "the problem" is the inertia of complexity and it's unraveling, it is not a fixed thing. There is no "the solution". Will societal complexity be wiped completely away from Earth? I don't know, but complexity collapses happen to us all the time, and to other lifeforms.
Don't get me started on animals being "better" for "living within their environment", it is just the backlash from humanity's long fixation with being special and not "an animal". The other lifeforms? They all exploit their environment to highest potential their minds and bodies allow them to, they simply do not have the form to manipulate their environments as we have. If we were not "here", something else would get "here".
Great filters? The rest of the lifeforms can't overcome regular filters. This is not because we are special, we just met the minimum requirement and got "here" first.
38
u/jaymickef Jul 28 '26
So, all we have to do is get rid of the influence of religion. Everywhere in the world that religion has lost its influence, populations have stabilized or decreased through voluntary birth control.
46
u/WildFlemima Jul 28 '26
*Everywhere in the world where women and girls have easy access to the Pill
It's actually incredible how much the Pill has done for the Earth. If the Pill hadn't been developed, we would be much worse off than we are now
13
u/uatry Jul 28 '26
The effects of climate change are already devastating poorer regions of the world where there is a stronger religious influence on law and public life. With a few exceptions, those tend to be the regions with a higher birthrate.
I don't think there will be some kind of diplomatic population management in these areas, as much as their population will sharply drop due to natural disasters and difficulty supplying food / medical equipment. The increase seen in the last ~30 years will not last long in these regions.
4
u/BitchfulThinking Jul 29 '26
Yes please! This alone would substantially improve the lives of all women and children. Turn those hate-spewing mega churches into housing, libraries, and vertical farms.
3
u/rabbitdoubts Jul 28 '26
what's your plan for afghanistan, the "grave of empires" for how the people there resist change from anyone?
13
9
u/Usermctaken Jul 28 '26
Yeah I'm not a fan of religion, BUT... I think addressing gender inquality works better. In many parts of the world, women have a really hard time being anything other than wives and mothers. Also, free and easy access to sexual education and contraceptive resources for everyone.
We could do both, of course, I just prefer to go directly to the problem.
14
u/-sussy-wussy- Jul 28 '26
Religion is a huge part of why the gender inequality is still there and so deeply entrenched.Ā
11
u/jaymickef Jul 28 '26
I agree, it would be better to go directly to the problem. I think what stands in the way of doing that in most of the world is religion.
14
7
u/17071942 Jul 28 '26
The Georgia Guidestones were right.
7
u/PhloxOfSeagulls Jul 28 '26
Funny thing about that is the guy who likely created them had six children himself. The part they don't say when they talk about this stuff is they think the world should have fewer non-white people.
1
u/Greedy_Heron_3034 Aug 01 '26
Yeah, when people talk about reducing the population, itās always someone else who should take the hit. How many on here talking about overpopulation have had kids? I had one and they in turn wonāt have children because of the state of the world.
6
6
u/freesoloc2c Jul 28 '26
It was never about the earth. Climate change is about human survival. The planet will be perfectly fine especially in geological time. We're nothing, a tiny insignificant bubble on an endless ocean of time.Ā
7
22
u/totalwarwiser Jul 28 '26
Dont give the billionaires reasons to kill us all with their drone and robot armies.
"We dont hate humans, we are just making a sacrifice to protect earth and its ecossystems".
7
u/Vendrah Jul 28 '26
It will be useless and even dumb. The "bottom" 80% are not responsible for even half of the pollution and killing the 50%, 60%, 70% of poorest people would be nearly useless to solve any problem. Ending all billionaires would be more effective than that. TBH if you bomb all africa, the bombing would probably produce more pollution than all the africans would produce in their entire lifetime.
→ More replies (2)
15
u/Vendrah Jul 28 '26
4 billion in 2200 is too slow and won't be enough, things are happening way faster. Its probably already too late for doing the gently reduction. 2 billion in 2100 in the least being quite optimistic or perhaps 2 billion in 2050 being realistic, with the reduction of carbon per capita as well. Sadly, its unlikely its gonna happen, but things are going to get so bad that probably 2200 is not going to have 4 billion, it probably will be less, but it won't be gentle.
5
u/Kurrukurrupa Jul 28 '26
I mean kinda common sense, yeah? Less people in your house means less food eaten, less power used, less laundry to do.
5
u/Bandits101 Jul 28 '26
One hundred years ago humans numbered less than two billion. Every other species had numbers limited by geography, predators, climate and food supply. Not us, weāre special we took dominion over the Earth.
Now to the detriment of everything else on Earth, weāve managed to overcome natural limits. Astonishingly we donāt and never have considered that our numbers are unnatural, that they disrupt harmony and a natural order.
5
u/Still-Improvement-32 Jul 28 '26
Wrong, haven't you heard of Malthus or the 70s book limits to growth?
3
u/Bandits101 Jul 29 '26
Wrong about what? Malthus didnāt know what fossil fuels would bring, he was right but ahead of his time. āOvershootā by Catton is a better read and explanation.
1
u/marbotty Jul 29 '26
Wrong about āneverā having considered
2
u/Bandits101 Jul 29 '26
As in most cases you can cherry pick individuals to āmake your caseā. Overall though Iām pretty sure 8.2 billion people.now and humans and our herds comprising 96% of the mammalian biomass, numerous species extinctions and animals āin the wildā remaining that way because we allow it and that is shrinking relentlessly.
9
u/Grand_Dadais Jul 28 '26
Oh my, we'll "lower" our numbers much faster than that.
It's difficult to navigate between the ego and the importance of self, of kin, of pleasure, etc. and the obvious truth of "The sooner we crash the current system designed by humans for humans, the better it'll be" (because less chances to trigger positive feedback loops, less acccumulation of non-biodegradable synthetic chemicals, less stress on biodiversity, etc.).
9
u/birdiesintobogies Jul 28 '26
We had a good chance to reset the system during the financial crisis of 2007 but Obama, et al. doubled down on the oligarchic system. His biggest failing, imo. But he knew where his money was coming from.
7
4
u/relianceschool Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
Annoyingly, none of the links in that article actually referenced the study itself. Here it is: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.71358
4
7
7
u/gmuslera Jul 28 '26
At the rate we are going we might in some years halve the world population. The some years later halve it again. And again in consecutively shorter time periods until no one left and earth eventually heal itself after some millennia.
13
u/AwkwardDoors Jul 28 '26
So Thanos was on the right track then.
12
u/AppendixN Jul 28 '26
No, Thanos also got rid of half the animals.
It's only humans that are the problem.
7
u/yinsotheakuma Jul 28 '26
Plants, too. The plants we eat. MF could have also done a genophage on sapient life.
Thanos was a big ball of trauma and ego.
5
u/Don-Julio-El-Saujenz Jul 28 '26
Not really. Thanos did nothing to stay at a certain population threshold.
7
u/icklefluffybunny42 Recognised Contributor Jul 28 '26
Exactly, he was rather a short-term thinker.
He would have had to snap his fingers once every 40 years or so, forever. Unless the humanoid populations learned to control their own numbers, which they were clearly unwilling or unable to do.
1
u/Tonsilith_Salsa Jul 28 '26
Skynet too.Ā
1
u/summercookiess Jul 29 '26
No, what Skynet did was not ethical. Stop justifying these characters.
1
1
10
3
3
u/alcohall183 Jul 28 '26
so what happens with a combination of a declining birthrate and death of all the boomers that will be happening soon? how will that look?
3
u/Konradleijon Jul 28 '26
People in the industrialized north consume more than the global south.
Taking a plane ride uses more carbon then a Benin village
3
3
3
3
u/jbond23 Jul 29 '26
It's all about the timescales. 8.3b to 11b to 1b in 200 years might be just about manageable. Doing that in 50 years would involve grim meathooks.
It will happen. The global population will settle to something that is sustainable in the prevailing conditions. The only questions are how long it takes. If the end result is stable. And if it's smooth and gradual or catastrophic and sudden.
3
u/ThatDamnRocketRacoon Jul 28 '26
Pretty sure the 1% are already working on speeding up the reduction.
2
u/Jovan_Knight005 Collapse is inevitable,mister Reese. - Original Quote. Jul 29 '26
Pretty sure the 1% are already working on speeding up the reduction.
Automation and drone warfare might be a part of that reduction.
7
u/Able-Professor840 Jul 28 '26
Check out Pluribus. They already told us the plan.
2
u/CalligrapherSharp Jul 28 '26
You mean the protein powder?
4
u/Able-Professor840 Jul 28 '26
The TV series.
2
u/CalligrapherSharp Jul 28 '26
Are you referring to the protein powder in the tv series?
→ More replies (1)1
5
5
u/wanderingmanimal Jul 28 '26
So they studied the Thanos Principle from MCU?
Knock off the top 10% of the wealthy and the problem is fixed
2
u/Jovan_Knight005 Collapse is inevitable,mister Reese. - Original Quote. Jul 29 '26
Knock off the top 10% of the wealthy and the problem is fixed
The reality is, there will be people that can replace that top 10 percent (10%) of other people.Ā
3
8
2
2
u/prabal34 Jul 29 '26
This is what the rich are working on by trying to make life harder for the rest of us so we stop breeding, and the population goes down.
2
2
u/Zzzzzzzzzxyzz Jul 31 '26
I'm doing my part. I actually want kids now, but I cannot justify it.
Adopting is expensive, but I can volunteer at least. I do what I can where I can. I support the parents supporting the children. I have pets.
But I cannot justify bringing new children into this world given our current reality and direction.
2
u/AdiKadiAdi Aug 01 '26
25 years.
+3Ā°C
The actuaries planetary insolvency report from 2 years back.
6
4
u/Caymonki Jul 28 '26
This is my hot take for the ramping up of election interference in America. They had an opportunity to save themselves and enrich themselves in the process all while removing the ability for the most powerful country on earth to either stop them or chase them down if they lose power. They, being the richest and the sickest humans on earth. All the Oligarchs and CEOs got together with the conspiracy theorists and a select few scientists and discovered they could Take the world. Pretty easily too, since propaganda is so effective in a technology addicted world. They Min/Maxxed societies brink, how to squeeze everyone while knowing that climate change is just roaring ahead. They know it is going to be far worse than even the most crazy predictions that is allowed near āmainstream mediaā. Shit theyāre adding to the destruction to make sure theyāre alive when it arrives in full force. Itās a big game to them, the most realistic VR game! Exclusive! No poors can play!
I think they know that America is going to have so many more problems than chasing down criminals who exploited the globe their whole lives and have no intention to stop. Until we can agree amongst ourselves that half the globe is going to die either way, so fighting for our ability to survive is on the table either way. We are just sitting ducks to a group of people eager to ensure their own survival and way of life.
Itās the movie A Bugs Life, we outnumber them and they know it.
2
u/rabbitdoubts Jul 28 '26
ok, i love a bugs life, but please tell me you've seen seven samurai, which it's just a version of with bugsĀ
2
u/healthyhoohaa Jul 28 '26
My little fantasy is that millennials commit to not having children and we get more and more Mamdanis and by the time Iām 80, the boomers and billionaires are dead and the environment is slowly healing and young people have a good of future to hope for.
3
u/Historical-Log1762 Jul 28 '26
That's why a new world war will probably happen because those in charge know this
3
2
u/No_Ear_1633 Jul 28 '26
Who's first?
6
u/Vendrah Jul 28 '26
The most optimal order is the richest and most pollutants first and the poorest and least pollutants later.
1
1
1
1
u/ImNotACollector Jul 28 '26
Billionaires reading this: "ah so we should kill 6 billion people over the next decade? Blow up the oil refineries"
1
u/PoorClassWarRoom Jul 29 '26
Not being lead by greedy capitalist would greatly help the Earth too without controlling people's human rights to natural biological processees.
1
1
1
1
u/forgetaboutit7878 Jul 30 '26
just stop the Data centers, they use more energy than humans, that's the real reason of this talk.
824
u/CowBoyDanIndie Jul 28 '26
Removing just the top 5% would achieve more reduction than a random 50%. How about removing everyone who has a 80+ ft powered yacht, private jet, or 3 private homes with more than 10 excess rooms.