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

Science Memes

20433 readers
2299 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
Sal@mander.xyz
fossilesque@mander.xyz
SciBot@mander.xyz
fossilesque@lemmy.dbzer0.com
686
We produce more resources than we could ever consume in the least sustainable ways possible. (mander.xyz)
submitted 2 weeks ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
179 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SpongyAneurysm@feddit.org 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] spacesatan@lazysoci.al 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] spacesatan@lazysoci.al 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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.