I thought the current conclusion is: we’re at the tipping point now that would allow most wildlife to persevere. We need to be changing course now or yesterday to save the majority of even most if any at all. There are efforts, but most habitats are on course for nearly irreversible modifications.
Humanity will survive, at the cost of other wildlife on the planet.
Well that’s about disastrous decimation of wildlife due to climate change, which is technically a separate thing. I was just commenting on the obvious fact that less humans means better outcome overall for the planet and wildlife.
The comment I was making was regarding wildlife. Above, you specifically made a check mark talking about wildlife.
My comment was on topic to your comment.
Human population is affected by the climate of our planet. Part of the reason we don’t have more people is also climate related.
We’re going to drive most wildlife extinct by the currently unfolding action, population size notwithstanding. The damage is done.
This better outcome you speak of doesn’t account for the fact that we’re not changing our behavior now. We should have changed these things 20 years ago.
The current messaging is that we have only 15 years left to figure this out and Limit the increase to 1.5c.
We already failed hard, it’s a question of how much collateral damage to the ecosystem will we cause.
Wildlife will not be ok.
Humans and societies in general will be distressed.
This event might be a large test of our longevity as a species.
The planet will be fine and has been through worse.
The problem is that you will end up with a massive shortage of man power. Automation may fill in the gaps but at the end of the day you will end up with a labor shortage.
There also is the problem of not having enough people to take care of the elderly. We are slowly moving to a future where the majority of the population is old and grey
Again, a duly needed change. Less people means less everything, so less need for so much bullshit to produce and consume. Less overall is a good thing.
It’s already plenty bad how many stay in poverty their whole life, wealth inequality is a much bigger barrier than a raw count of people. Most of those one in a million never get an opportunity to make a difference just because of where they started
They’ve been saying that so people are less likely to riot if they’re ever successful in stealing it like they’ve been trying to do for decades. But the fund is moderately healthy… for now.
Wow that never crossed my mind. Totally see it now since they constantly talk about gutting it. Jerks are always late game planning.
Well regardless I rather have happy wanted children in the world than unwanted ones. I am curious if the reduction of unwanted children will lead to less financial waste in long run.
This is bad news only for the capitalist ideology of endless growth.
Yep.
✅Good for the planet.
✅Good for societies and humans in general.
✅Good for wildlife.
✅Good for our longevity as a species.
❌Bad for people who exploit others to gain money and resources.
Good. I’m glad there will be an unstoppable reckoning coming to these unapologetically savage fuckers.
I thought the current conclusion is: we’re at the tipping point now that would allow most wildlife to persevere. We need to be changing course now or yesterday to save the majority of even most if any at all. There are efforts, but most habitats are on course for nearly irreversible modifications. Humanity will survive, at the cost of other wildlife on the planet.
Well that’s about disastrous decimation of wildlife due to climate change, which is technically a separate thing. I was just commenting on the obvious fact that less humans means better outcome overall for the planet and wildlife.
The comment I was making was regarding wildlife. Above, you specifically made a check mark talking about wildlife. My comment was on topic to your comment.
Human population is affected by the climate of our planet. Part of the reason we don’t have more people is also climate related.
We’re going to drive most wildlife extinct by the currently unfolding action, population size notwithstanding. The damage is done.
This better outcome you speak of doesn’t account for the fact that we’re not changing our behavior now. We should have changed these things 20 years ago.
The current messaging is that we have only 15 years left to figure this out and Limit the increase to 1.5c.
We already failed hard, it’s a question of how much collateral damage to the ecosystem will we cause.
Wildlife will not be ok.
Humans and societies in general will be distressed.
This event might be a large test of our longevity as a species.
The planet will be fine and has been through worse.
The problem is that you will end up with a massive shortage of man power. Automation may fill in the gaps but at the end of the day you will end up with a labor shortage.
There also is the problem of not having enough people to take care of the elderly. We are slowly moving to a future where the majority of the population is old and grey
Again, a duly needed change. Less people means less everything, so less need for so much bullshit to produce and consume. Less overall is a good thing.
The problem is with the sudden changes. Its fine to have a population change gradually
The other thing it’s bad for is getting exceptional people. If you need 1 in a million people it’s easier the more millions of people you have
It’s already plenty bad how many stay in poverty their whole life, wealth inequality is a much bigger barrier than a raw count of people. Most of those one in a million never get an opportunity to make a difference just because of where they started
But muh shareholder value
Remember that one time shareholder value fell through the floor and it only hurt the capitalists? Yeah, that never happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression
Shrinking population is economically harmful regardless of your economic system
There are other concerns, like the collapse of social security.
But they keep telling me it’s gone anyway and I’ll never see it. I don’t see how that makes anything worse.
They’ve been saying that so people are less likely to riot if they’re ever successful in stealing it like they’ve been trying to do for decades. But the fund is moderately healthy… for now.
Wow that never crossed my mind. Totally see it now since they constantly talk about gutting it. Jerks are always late game planning.
Well regardless I rather have happy wanted children in the world than unwanted ones. I am curious if the reduction of unwanted children will lead to less financial waste in long run.