this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2024
287 points (98.0% liked)

World News

39033 readers
994 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Hey, maybe less humans means more climate. We haven’t tried that one yet.

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

No comment replies to you, but all the down votes. I'm curious what their take is on this.

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network -3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Less humans mean less innovation. It means less energy and then less emissions total, but that's irrelevant long term. Without enough labor to support industry growth and technology, we'll be more on the sustaining ourselves side of labor. Which means we're far more likely to relapse into fossil fuels. Especially if the depopulation is rapid which will destabilize industries.

[–] okamiueru@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The argument that any number of human will stochastically offset its own emission through science and technology is patently absurd. You need a certain amount of people in order to sustain hi tech infrastructure. But 8 billion now and still 8 billion in 2080, which would be the largest possible "natural" change in trajectory of global population, one of the best things for humanity when it comes to global emissions.

The more likely trajectory of 10.5 by 2080 is much more likely to lead to exhaustion of resources and ecosystems, not to mention lead to more wars, famine, and global warming, all of which will fuel each other.

If you want innovation and advancement of human knowledge. The thought of "make more babies" being an important factor is funny as hell. Thanks for the chuckle.

[–] Peddlephile@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

That's where automation comes in to do the menial repetitive jobs and the remaining humans take on more complex tasks. Everything will work itself out.