this post was submitted on 24 May 2026
687 points (90.4% liked)

Science Memes

20592 readers
729 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] spacesatan@lazysoci.al 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

total emissions = emissions per capita * capita

Unless we figure out carbon neutrality without cratering HDI in the next year or two maybe lets work on reducing birth rates. 'we could have 20 billion people if we all live like subsistence farmers' is fucking stupid.

[–] brownsugga@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

except that not all "capita" have same emissions. someone in Eritrea has a much smaller "carbon footprint" (a term invented by BP to distract from their own wanton disregard for the environment) than a billionaire in the western world

[–] spacesatan@lazysoci.al 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yes that means it's less important to reduce birth rate in Eritrea than in the US or Australia or whatever. As long as you're either not concerned about raising their HDI rapidly or you think it can raise without per capita emissions rising with it and good luck with that.

[–] r1veRRR@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago

From memory, the choice of an american to become vegan makes up for a nuclear families worth Nigerians.

[–] SpongyAneurysm@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wow, that's a detailled analysis of an issue, if I've ever seen one.

[–] spacesatan@lazysoci.al 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It doesn't need to be, the core concept is simple. We are already overpopulated because we are failing to sustainably provide for 8 billion people. Doubling the number of people to provide for is not going to help.

[–] SpongyAneurysm@feddit.org 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's the beauty of it, every concept can be simple, if you simply oversimplify.

[–] spacesatan@lazysoci.al 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

OK then explain how increasing population reduces demand for goods and lowers GHG emissions. Explain how increasing america's birthrate would lower it's emissions.

[–] SpongyAneurysm@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't have to. You're trying make me argue inside your simplistic logic, which I refuse to do as it completely glosses over - among other things - the fact, that not every 'capita' contributes equally to emissions.

https://climatefactchecks.org/worlds-richest-10-linked-to-two-thirds-of-global-warming-since-1990/

[–] spacesatan@lazysoci.al 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

yeah no shit that's the emissions per capita part. It was 'oversimplified' but I guess still too hard for you to understand?

Yes that means it’s less important to reduce birth rate in Eritrea than in the US or Australia or whatever. As long as you’re either not concerned about raising their HDI rapidly or you think it can raise without per capita emissions rising with it and good luck with that.

If you didn't actually have a rebuttal you could have just not engaged instead of being a smug prick with nothing to add.