Neither options. There’s a third option, involving a really smaller number (smaller than 100), but it’s too controversial to be written as a comment, I guess…
I mean seriously, the first thought that came to my mind was: “How is this better for nature? They are going to poison the shit out of the ocean around their shores dumping their shit right into it because they’ve got nowhere else for it to go, because it’s still too many people for that area.”
Even if they try to build septic, it’s just too damn small for it to not be leeching into the water unless they dig the septic tank insanely deep.
Wouldn’t a water treatment facility for that much wastewater take up about as much space as the living area? What about electricity generation? And where is fresh water coming from?
These fucking simplistic ass views will be the death of us.
Exactly what I thought: “still too many people”. Considering one house/apartment to one person, there are 100 people. Where did they all came from? Being born. How they were born? Well, for the sake of Lemmy rules I’ll stop here, because what I’m thinking is still a taboo on societal debates.
First and foremost, I was never talking about eugenics (a thing that would mean “selective breeding”, definitely not the thing I’m defending). It’s about other topics seen “as controversial as it” (although even the visible, blatant climate change is still seen as “controversial” by negationists in an anthropocentric world), which I guess will become clearer at the next paragraphs.
you’re wrong that there are too many people for the earth to support
While indeed Earth physically supports way more humans, don’t forget that humans were never the center of the biosphere: there are trees, algae, jaguars, owls, spiders, ants, bears, bacteria, protozoa, complex and beautiful sea life, and so on. We need to account for every single species, not solely homo sapiens. And that all life on Earth depends on Earth’s resources, mainly water and oxygen.
Unless you’re talking of humble cave people (hominins/hominids) who indeed maintained an harmonic relationship with fauna and flora behaving as all living beings do (collecting out-of-the-wild food and hunting preys to eat and survive) while also keeping a balanced reproduction (i.e. not reinlessly procreating), the “modern humans” can’t be no polluting. It’s the nature of modern humans: modern humans will pollute, whether they live at houses, at apartments or even at “modern caves” (bunkers).
Fire discovery is something to blame for this behavior. There’s always someone who’ll lit some logs and set fire on wildfire so to “expand their lawn”, or there’s always someone who’ll think “huh, I guess my apartment neighbors need money to exchange things, maybe I could become the leader and build a big polluting factory here to employ them while making industrialized things to sell them, because bartering craftsmanship is a primitive thing we can’t accept” (Fun fact: you don’t see birds carrying “money” or “goods” across the skies, for example).
Last but not least, I’m no alien nor a jaguar or a tree, so I’m obviously aware of myself. I’m aware of how polluter I am on Earth being a “modern human”.
If it didn’t become clear, I’m defending for primitive and sustainable ways of life (a return to our hominin origins), ecocentrism (Nature above humans, not humans above Nature), the awareness of how unbridled procreation is dangerous to both the Earth and the humans as well the “right” to live not being a “duty” to live. Again, all “controversial” topics for many people but whatever.
Not really. If you used money you were put in a lottery to commit suicide and if you were chosen you got a big party to celebrate your sacrifice. The only people who had a problem with it were the Sliders.
Neither options. There’s a third option, involving a really smaller number (smaller than 100), but it’s too controversial to be written as a comment, I guess…
I mean seriously, the first thought that came to my mind was: “How is this better for nature? They are going to poison the shit out of the ocean around their shores dumping their shit right into it because they’ve got nowhere else for it to go, because it’s still too many people for that area.”
Even if they try to build septic, it’s just too damn small for it to not be leeching into the water unless they dig the septic tank insanely deep.
Wouldn’t a water treatment facility for that much wastewater take up about as much space as the living area? What about electricity generation? And where is fresh water coming from?
These fucking simplistic ass views will be the death of us.
Exactly what I thought: “still too many people”. Considering one house/apartment to one person, there are 100 people. Where did they all came from? Being born. How they were born? Well, for the sake of Lemmy rules I’ll stop here, because what I’m thinking is still a taboo on societal debates.
Yeah, eugenics is gross and you’re wrong that there are too many people for the earth to support
First and foremost, I was never talking about eugenics (a thing that would mean “selective breeding”, definitely not the thing I’m defending). It’s about other topics seen “as controversial as it” (although even the visible, blatant climate change is still seen as “controversial” by negationists in an anthropocentric world), which I guess will become clearer at the next paragraphs.
While indeed Earth physically supports way more humans, don’t forget that humans were never the center of the biosphere: there are trees, algae, jaguars, owls, spiders, ants, bears, bacteria, protozoa, complex and beautiful sea life, and so on. We need to account for every single species, not solely homo sapiens. And that all life on Earth depends on Earth’s resources, mainly water and oxygen.
Unless you’re talking of humble cave people (hominins/hominids) who indeed maintained an harmonic relationship with fauna and flora behaving as all living beings do (collecting out-of-the-wild food and hunting preys to eat and survive) while also keeping a balanced reproduction (i.e. not reinlessly procreating), the “modern humans” can’t be no polluting. It’s the nature of modern humans: modern humans will pollute, whether they live at houses, at apartments or even at “modern caves” (bunkers).
Fire discovery is something to blame for this behavior. There’s always someone who’ll lit some logs and set fire on wildfire so to “expand their lawn”, or there’s always someone who’ll think “huh, I guess my apartment neighbors need money to exchange things, maybe I could become the leader and build a big polluting factory here to employ them while making industrialized things to sell them, because bartering craftsmanship is a primitive thing we can’t accept” (Fun fact: you don’t see birds carrying “money” or “goods” across the skies, for example).
Last but not least, I’m no alien nor a jaguar or a tree, so I’m obviously aware of myself. I’m aware of how polluter I am on Earth being a “modern human”.
If it didn’t become clear, I’m defending for primitive and sustainable ways of life (a return to our hominin origins), ecocentrism (Nature above humans, not humans above Nature), the awareness of how unbridled procreation is dangerous to both the Earth and the humans as well the “right” to live not being a “duty” to live. Again, all “controversial” topics for many people but whatever.
There was an episode of Sliders where Thomas Malthus was a significant person and the global population was kept under 250 million.
It sounded nice, even with the lottery system.
That’s literally eco-fascism 💀
Not really. If you used money you were put in a lottery to commit suicide and if you were chosen you got a big party to celebrate your sacrifice. The only people who had a problem with it were the Sliders.
ok