this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2026
56 points (81.1% liked)

World News

57429 readers
531 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 2 points 16 hours ago

How about banning private jets first? And then stop subsidizing meat production? Then stop building cities around cars. Tax the production of plastic, to reduce the use of it.

[–] AnalogAllamma@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

Study shows it's actually the massive corporate conglomerates that do exponentially more damage to the Earth than the entire animal kingdom combined, humans included.

Reduce your carbon footprint is a Big Oil created PR campaign. It places the "climate crisis" blame on the individual consumer.

[–] qevlarr@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Malthusianism is fascist bullshit. Who has to go? This will be used for genocide if we allow any "there's simply too many people" narrative to subvert climate discourse.

We can feed, clothe and shelter everyone easily and comfortably. But we can't all have the luxuries of the most wealthy. Tough shit. That doesn't mean poor people having children has anything to do with our situation

[–] daannii@lemmy.world -2 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

No one says to kill people. We can easily do this by reducing birth rate.

[–] demonsword@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago

No one says to kill people yet

[–] qevlarr@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

It will always be some kind of "them" who should do that, never the "us". And what about rich people? Are they bound by the same rules or only in theory?

[–] daannii@lemmy.world -2 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

Well I don't have kids so I'm already part of the solution. I'm already committed to being child free

People already don't want kids. Cause of capitalism and sexism.

But it doesn't hurt for people to have better access to contraceptives.

Safe abortions.

And to make adoption easier and more socially promoted.

[–] qevlarr@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

You probably don't want children. For people who do, this is an enormous sacrifice I wouldn't ask of anyone. Just because of the comfort and luxury of developed nations, other people are somehow the problem. And not to mention it opens the door to fascists with specific ideas to cull the population

[–] daannii@lemmy.world -1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

When did I say we should restrict people from having kids. ?

I offered other solutions to the problem.

All of those solutions would be voluntary.

[–] qevlarr@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

They are not solutions, that's where you're dead wrong

[–] DisasterTransport@startrek.website 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Oh yeah? Which half? WHICH HALF MOTHERFUCKER?!? 🔪🪿💢

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

By 2200, if you read the article. So basically have less children.

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

So basically have less children.

[–] DisasterTransport@startrek.website 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

What they are describing is a natural reduction in population that occurs automatically when countries become more economically developed. Trying to steer this is gonna have downstream impacts. You are not going to roll out these reforms everywhere all at once, so where are you going to start? Because if democracy and a global economy are still going to exist in 2200, relative population sizes matter. If, say, India develops their rural regions, does a 180 on feminism, and halves their population in the process, but Pakistan doesn't, that's going to have geopolitical ramifications, and not good ones.

[–] Siegfried@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You cannot build a policy in such a way that population halving is distributed equitably unless you run a global forced sterilization lottery. Which has its own ethical problems. Maybe we could, idk, all agree to eat beef twice a month instead of every day and stop throwing shit fits over renewables and nuclear before economics and water scarcity makes fossil fuel plants impossible to support. Just a thought.

[–] SaorSol@startrek.website 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (8 children)

Funny how they leave out that taking just 1% of the wealthiest for a nice dirt nap would help more

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] filister@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Halving the population would definitely help, but some country populations have a lot lower impact than others.

The real problem is the consumerism mentality, where we need to buy even bigger cars, TVs, houses, clothes, etc.

This is what destroys our planet. And even if the population halves, this trend can negate much of the effect.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

So let's extrapolate here. Getting rid of all humans would help the earth even more? Sounds about right.

[–] Corvidae@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Meanwhile, in my country, the US government gives tax credits for children. No kids? No tax credits.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 56 points 2 days ago (28 children)

Scientists argue that the indiscriminate use of Earth’s resources by humans has led to environmental effects, ranging from biodiversity loss to climate change.

Motherfuckers will find it easier to imagine genociding half of humanity than ending capitalism.

load more comments (28 replies)
[–] tigermountain@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I'd like to volunteer to start the list with about a hundred people we can get rid of right now.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago

Forbes beat you too it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 25 points 2 days ago (24 children)

Actually, we'd only need to lose 50 maybe 100 people. Total.

load more comments (24 replies)
[–] metermatic26@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Capitalism called.

They said “no”… ☹️

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] aproposnix@piefed.social 12 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Just waiting for Theil or some other tech bro to start a company called "Vault-Tec".

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›