Sounds like shrinking the population would solve the problem, as long as it’s a very specific 10% that was shrunk.
Humans are part of the ecosystem.
Submitted 1 day ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/416e0b23-474d-4919-984e-88a173ae7cee.jpeg
Comments
KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 1 day ago
Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Just a little off the top.
KoloradoKoolAid75@lemmygrad.ml 1 day ago
Humans10% are a virus to the planetFTFY
TipsyMcGee@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 hours ago
I really dislike equating talking of ”overpopulation” with fascism.
The problem of building sustainable societies is a problem of scale. Inevitably, what a sustainable society looks like will depend on how many people that society has to provide finite resources for without causing too much environmental harm. Assuming we could agree on a lowest acceptable standard of living for everyone and a hard cap on emissions and other environmental harms of resource extraction, any population growth exceeding the rate of efficiency gains in resource extraction and resource utilization/distribution would drive a decline in that acceptable standard. And the reality is that efficiency gains are not guaranteed.
As land is finite, bigger populations by default means higher population density, requires higher extraction efficiency and scaling the average standard of living – allotment of resources and space – in line with keeping environment impact below sustainability thresholds. When using indigenous people as an example, we can note that they are often, conversely, characterized by low population density and low extraction efficiency. Despite low impact living standards, the world would not be able to accommodate a very large population relying on that as a model for sustainability.
The point is not to say that indigenous people living in traditional ways are inferior or less sustainable than people living wastefully in the global north. The point is that population/scale is a huge part in the equation, whether you’re making that point because you’re a fascist who wants to exterminate parts of the population or not.
Obviously, what is a good society with an acceptable living standard for all is hard to agree on. And so is at what point the human population exceeds the world’s capacity. But baring the invention of Star Trek like replicators, inter-planetary expansion or similar technological step-changes for humanity, every ideology infers a point of population overshoot where Earth cannot provide enough resources to offer an acceptable standard of living for its inhabitants.
relianceschool@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Thank you for this thoughtful and nuanced take on the subject. It’s sad that constructive discussion around population is often shut down due to the link between eugenics and population control. It’s often assumed that anyone advocating for lowered population is in support of similarly dystopian/authoritarian policies, when increasing access to birth control and education has the same effect while increasing personal agency.
I would also note that the theory of evolution has been used to justify all kinds of absurd ideologies, yet we don’t have a problem accepting its basic tenets.
If we accept the fact that humanity is in a state of ecological overshoot, and that overshoot is a function of population x consumption, then it’s entirely reasonable to want to address both sides of the equation.
VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 hours ago
The issue isn’t population, it’s consumption.
We don’t need a dozen different plastic tchotchkes delivered to our doorstep the day after we order them. We don’t need 64 GB of RAM for 10,000 steam games we’ll never play in 4k at 60fps. We don’t need to be able to order greasy piles of fast food whenever we want.
To me, blaming overpopulation for the world’s problems always comes across as saying “I don’t want to change my lifestyle, and if there’s 6 billion fewer people, I won’t have to”
rando895@lemmygrad.ml 15 hours ago
Also “living in traditional ways” is at best misleading. There is already more than enough to go around when we consider actual physical resources. Using market mechanisms to determine how things are distributed works very poorly in terms of meeting everyones needs, and blinds us to actual solutions.
The idea of overshooting earths capacity is firmly rooted in extractive ideology (which is a cornerstone of capitalist economies) and doesn’t even begin to consider how an adjustment in economic output to meet real demand and not whatever is the most profitable, would result in massive changes in the way we do things.
Food production could become more regenerative because we need to feed people not make money.
Clothing industries would cut gigantic amounts of waste simply by ceasing the destruction of clothing to maintain high prices.
And these 2 ideas alone could revolutionize nearly every aspect of our existence.
Indigenous ways of doing is not extractive. It is better described as a collaboration with nature. Managing natural resources to meet our needs, and the needs of (often specifically) the next 7 generations. It means managing forests to make more forests, with all the flora and fauna that entails. Among other things
The fascist part is:
Ohh humans are the problem Okay, which humans? Who decides who gets what? Who lives and who dies? Is there any consideration for the power dynamics in our society (spoiler, no there is not)
In short the quote who ever said it:
Environmentalism without class struggle is just gardening.
MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 14 hours ago
The fascist part is: Ohh humans are the problem Okay, which humans? Who decides who gets what? Who lives and who dies? Is there any consideration for the power dynamics in our society (spoiler, no there is not)
That’s the part that always gets me. When I hear that argument it usually goes like this:
“There’s too many humans, we’re killing our planet :(”
“Yeah good thing you’re not one of those! Oh wait you are so…Okay, are you gonna be first in line to sacrifice yourself for the alleged Greater Good or. . .?”
“. . .”
“. . .well?”
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
Ecofascism isn’t a real ideology I don’t know why people keep insisting it is.
porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
What do you mean? It certainly is. It has been, for example, an influence in several right extreme terror attacks (notably the Christchurch, NZ mass shooting in 2019 comes to mind, where the murderer explicitly described himself as such in his manifesto). Not to mention that crunchy, back-to-the land ideas are a really important part of contemporary far right propaganda.
I’d also argue that this doesn’t really sow division amongst environmentalists; just because it has ‘eco’ in the name doesn’t mean these people actually care about the environment, it’s all aesthetics.
fossilesque@mander.xyz 1 day ago
Yes, surprised at these comments considering how much this stuff is some of the current hot topics in research.
Oppopity@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
It has been, for example, an influence in several right extreme terror attacks (notably the Christchurch, NZ mass shooting in 2019 comes to mind, where the murderer explicitly described himself as such in his manifesto).
“Michelle Chan, vice president of programs for Friends of the Earth, said, “The key thing to understand here is that ecofascism is more an expression of white supremacy than it is an expression of environmentalism.””
just because it has ‘eco’ in the name doesn’t mean these people actually care about the environment, it’s all aesthetics.
In other words, it isn’t an ideology.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
Well first was this guy’s ideology really distinct or is he just a fascist who talks about environmental issues as a post-hoc justification to make his objectively deranged actions seem more reasonable?
But I didn’t mean there are no singular eco-fascists anywhere on earth. There are 8 billion people on the planet so I could make up a mad lib ideology and chances are it’s similar to what someone somewhere believes. But I’ve never met one to my knowledge, not even online. There’s no organized push for this or political power behind it. The vast majority of fascists don’t give a shit about the environment and the vast majority of environmentalists oppose fascism. So the only time I see it mentioned is when people get criticized for discussing the impacts of human population.
I understand why it’s a touchy subject. Past racist policies used overpopulation as a justification for crimes against humanity. But that the human impact on the earth is proportional to our population is just a fact, and it doesn’t make you a fascist to acknowledge that. You’re only a fascist if you think that fact gives you a right to brutalize people, and, as I’ve said, I just don’t hear this from any organized or popular thinkers.
Wander@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I watched a documentary in New Zeland about fish stocks. It was talking about how the fish around New Zeland are overfished and numbers are low. Had experts talking about issues with boats and how they need no fishing areas. They had Maori on there talking about how much abundance of fish there was before the white people came. They talked about how in tune the Maori were with the land and had ways to manage stock.
The documentary finished saying the issue is still ongoing and not enough has been done. Didn’t really go into why.
Well I looked it up after the majority of fishing companies are owned by the Maori and the reason the scientifically justified areas were not set as a sanctuary was because the Maori didnt agree with the science and wanted to do things there own way that would allow them to fish at levels higher than what the science was saying is possible. On this matter New Zealand cared more about what Maori incorrectly believed over what the scientific evidence was saying to them.
People need to get off their high horse. People suck all over the world. Yea shock the people that live in mountains which remain untouched because it is shit farmland is going to have the most nature. But go to other countries and you see it’s the same, well worse than white countries. Places like UK has had protected land for hundreds of years. They set up protected land in the new places they went. Areas they left like Malaysia and India are full of rubbish and monoculture. They didn’t get better. Go to Indonesia and look at their beautiful islands. The tour guide to us said “look no littering sign. Only on Indonesian. Westerners don’t litter but the locals do”.
Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 20 hours ago
no littering sign. Only in Indonesian
Not really related, but in Japan, I came across a monolingual sign that said: “In Japanese culture, it is considered impolite to piss in public”.
Westerners don’t litter but the locals do
Have you not seen how westerners behave on vacation? Maybe you got lucky, but there’s a reason the tourist part of nearly every city has the most litter
Wander@sh.itjust.works 18 hours ago
The Japanese are better than the westerners I’m not denying that.
Probably because thats where the most people are.
When you go to Asia most people are locals. Even driving through areas buses and trains don’t stop the amount of trash is monumental.
87Six@lemmy.zip 18 hours ago
It’s not cultural, it’s moral and intelligence-related
As with all good vs bad discussions…
SpookyBogMonster@lemmy.ml 14 hours ago
There’s another layer of complexity here that you’re glossing over, I think, and that’s class dynamics within the Maori population.
It can both be true that traditional Maori lifeways were more sustainable, and that modern, Maori owned fishing companies are over fishing.
The coming of the white man didn’t ruin the sustainability of fishing, because of something ontologically bad with white people, but because they enforced an extractive, capitalist, economic system onto the region.
Colonialism pulled the Maori into a broader world system which generated a group of Maori with enough capital to, say, found fishing companies, and a wide swathe of Maori who can’t.
And paradoxically, that capital generation from unsustainable, capitalist, fishing practices is probably one of the things that allows Maori communities to have a degree of sovereignty, all the while said fishing practices are undermining their ability to continue to sustain themselves.
porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 20 hours ago
That documentary is embarrassingly wrong, the overwhelming majority of companies fishing in NZ waters are huge multinationals, not owned by Māori.
Wander@sh.itjust.works 18 hours ago
Well I can’t see how thats the case when you can easily look up catch right and special areas where only Maori can fish.
They must be selling off their rights or not using it then because the internet says otherwise. Or you are just making things up.
rekabis@lemmy.ca 9 hours ago
The planetary zero-impact carrying capacity for humanity is somewhere between 500 million and 2 billion, depending if we want (respectively) a first-world meat-inclusive diet or a fully vegan diet.
Carbon emissions aside, we are indeed a plague upon the planet. Thanks to high tech, we have massively blown past our carrying capacity, and risk lowering the non-high-tech-enabled carrying capacity down into the mere tens of millions or even less. Which bodes very badly if we experience a severe civilizational collapse in the next 10-30 years (as is becoming increasingly likely) that makes building and maintaining high tech impossible.
just_an_average_joe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 hours ago
I propose killing bottom 6-7.5 billions of humans. Or better yet, let’s create a system that marginalizes bottom 6 billion so they die anyways. And just to speed things up, throw in a couple global wars…
oh wait, we are already on track for this plan
peteypete420@sh.itjust.works 5 hours ago
Ima need yall to not crush a good imeperionstion that I do. I can do a great Hugo Weaving (as mr smith), and the main line that i start off with, or use in my head while saying other things, is the humans are cancer speech.
Also just… Missssster Anderson
FosterMolasses@leminal.space 13 hours ago
Thanks for the good vibes, they’d also love this over on LeftyMemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
fossilesque@mander.xyz 10 hours ago
Feel free to crosspost!
FarceOfWill@infosec.pub 1 day ago
Your meme has too many words and the four block structure makes no sense.
Soulg@ani.social 1 day ago
Tldr White people bad
mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
It’s actually “TL;DR rich people bad” but sure, pop off I guess.
TheBat@lemmy.world 1 day ago
White people do be bad tho.
Anne Hathaway, Emma Watson, Cate Blanchette…
Absolute baddies 🥵
craigers@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
And the bottom 2 panels should maybe be reversed?
Krauerking@lemy.lol 1 day ago
Dude, there is a memes that are mutliple paragraphs that some people can recite by heart.
Just mention eliter snipers or vaporeon and watch the people go.
FarceOfWill@infosec.pub 17 hours ago
Come on, copy pasta is an entirely different form and they work due to being identical, or near, every time.
Theres a very subtle line where youve adapted them to the specific situation that they no longer work.
JamBandFan1996@lemmy.ml 16 hours ago
Sure, if you all want to live like it’s 1750 again humans are not a problem. We both know you don’t want to do that so stop acting like the modern lifestyle is sustainable if the rich just polluted less. It’s not that simple, they pollute that much because they own the facilities that support our lifestyle
Dholi@lemmy.ca 14 hours ago
they pollute that much because they own the facilities that support our lifestyle
I didn’t know their private jets, yachts, and companies that lobby for lax environment rules support my lifestyle.
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 hours ago
Cars, as in personal vehicles, are one of the largest portions of environmental damage. The majority of cars are owned by people who aren’t rich
Blackmist@feddit.uk 19 hours ago
Indigenous people protecting the environment from what?
jol@discuss.tchncs.de 18 hours ago
Capitalism
sukhmel@programming.dev 18 hours ago
That’s the real answer
Dholi@lemmy.ca 14 hours ago
How ignorant are you? Are Indigenous populations deforesting the Amazon? Are they forcing oil pipeline projects that cause massive oil spills that pollute rivers and lakes for thousands of years? Do they force mining projects that pollute earth for thousands of years? Did they invent forever chemicals that have now pollute every single square inch of earth? No, they live sustainably.
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 hours ago
This is absolutely worshipping indigenous people more so that you should be. They’re human same as the rest of us, and don’t have magical pro environment powers.
Blackmist@feddit.uk 13 hours ago
Which is my point. People. They’re protecting it from other people.
cozzy@futurology.today 17 hours ago
I think its more of a stewardship concept
87Six@lemmy.zip 18 hours ago
This better be ragebait
Anivia@feddit.org 18 hours ago
Although I dont disagree, the argument doesn’t make sense. Do you think our worlds population would be the same if we all lived like indigenous people?
PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
I distinctly remember being taught in 2002 in upstate New York that humans were outside of the ecosystem and not bound by the same rules and things as animals were. The teacher said that’s what made us so special.
What a fucking crime.
similideano@piefed.social 1 day ago
Krauerking@lemy.lol 1 day ago
I’m tired of people pretending they are smart and problem solving by by mass murdering most humans on the planet and stopping procreation.
You don’t solve a jigsaw puzzle by putting 10 pieces together and burning the rest so you dont have to deal with them.
Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Absoluetely no one is promoting this. I hear this bullshit argument every time degrowth comes up, but this has NOTHING to do with degrowth and is a bad faith argument full of too many fallacies to mention.
Krauerking@lemy.lol 1 day ago
Then you should doublecheck who you have arguing on your side and who you stand with. You can pump your chest you do not personally stand for this but the practice attracts those that are more physically minded than you.
Degrowth sides with eugenics, racists, and psychopaths. Just cause you think it would save the world to make less lives does not leave it without those that will find horrible ways to make it reality as there is not other practical way to make it happen.
starlinguk@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
When you buy a house you’re “one of the world’s richest”. The “world’s richest” aren’t just millionaires and billionaires. They include the middle classes.
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 12 hours ago
Assuming you live in a developed country. If you make your own mud hut in the wilderness, you own the house but you’re definitely not one of the world’s richest
Nangijala@feddit.dk 1 day ago
I’m not sure this person is aware what indigenous means. Unless, of course this meme is a 100% America-centric meme and largely ignores the entire rest of the world.
Also pretty funny that “eco fascism” is placed underneath what I assume are native Americans.
fossilesque@mander.xyz 1 day ago
Switch the bottom panels in your head. They’re not meant to be associated with the up row. Oop poor design choice.
Nangijala@feddit.dk 1 day ago
I get the intent, but I still think it’s funny that you placed eco fascist underneath the group the native Americans.
Btw, I still don’t think you know what indigenous means.
Poxlox@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
This is echoed across the globe, aboriginal people on Australia and others in the pacific islands. No, it’s not America only indigenous.
plyth@feddit.org 19 hours ago
Who is reading this without being part of the 10%?
relianceschool@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
According to this study, an income of $38,000/year puts you in the top 10% of carbon emitters. This study puts it at €42,980, or about $50K USD. That’s a little higher than the median income in N. America, Europe, and Australia.
That said, carbon emissions are just one way humans impact the environment; other facets are far less variable (we all produce about the same amount of human waste per day, for example).
TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Why does this matter?
plyth@feddit.org 8 hours ago
We have to know if we have to change our lives or those of the 1,000 billionaires.
It would be easy to change our lives but it becomes difficult if we wait for the billionaires to change instead.
elvis_depresley@sh.itjust.works 19 hours ago
what’s the cutoff to be in the 90%?
plyth@feddit.org 19 hours ago
Wealth distribution pyramid has $100,000 as limit to top 7.7%.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth
So $90,000 could be the cutoff.
Of course students don’t have that. However I would include anybody into the top 10% who will own $100,000 at one point in their life which should be anybody with real estate or a private pension plan in the West.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 16 hours ago
Are we counting the world’s industry into “the world’s richest 10%”?
Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
There is a point burried in there that is drowned out by all the fallacious added baggage. Its disingenuous bullshit.
Indigenous Chinese or Indians or Nigerians are not protectors of the earth, just like every other industrial nation. The picture meant to frame “Indigenous” as what Canada calls the indigenous First Nations peoples. It’s relying on the racist trope of the noble savage, forgetting that First Nations aren’t against industrializing their lands, as long as they are included as partner beneficiaries and they don’t maximize returns via egregious environmental destruction on their lands. They also generally want industrialization and trade including water treatment, sanitation and all the other goodies like internet, tv, playstations and the like.
It also targets “capitalist” without looking at the eco-horrors of every other 'ism on earth.
This is a shitpost carefully designed to be a lopsided attack.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 23 hours ago
amazon, many rainforests(both amazon and mega-biodiversity of indonesia, south eas asia) is being decimated and untold species both undiscovered and rares are fast disappearing.
architect@thelemmy.club 1 day ago
We aren’t saying that brown people are above tech and modernities and that’s why they don’t have them… are we? Surely not.
arararagi@ani.social 1 day ago
Nihilists should lead by example and remove themselves first.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 day ago
Carbon emissions are not the only problem. I really doubt the world’s reaches 10% also produce half of the sewage and plastic or that most of the land is turned into farms to feed them. It’s nice that indigenous people living in forest don’t destroy it but you can’t have 8 billion people living in forests. Cities and highways are not part of the ecosystem.
Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 1 day ago
No, sorry, I stand by the “humans are a virus” side. A small minority aren’t, but most are, myself included.
shalafi@lemmy.world 1 day ago
What are the population densities and technology levels among these magical indigenous peoples? This is the Magical Negro trope all over again.
ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
It’s not wrong to say that population is the driving problem. Do you think indigenous people ever coexisted with their ecosystem at the population density we’re at now?
halvar@lemy.lol 1 day ago
Saying stuff like humans are the virus isn’t fascism it’s just simply stupid/edgy. Sure you could say someone like that is a useful idiot to fascists but that’s like saying everyone who drinks gasoline from the cars parked on the street is furthering the agenda of some solar panel manufacturing company. Both are inconsequential enough for me not to give a shit.
HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
magazine.hms.harvard.edu/…/good-viruses-do
Not all viruses are evil, so it might hold up?
umbrella@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
i think the text is swapped on the meme
deranger@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
This reeks of the “noble savage” stereotype. I would be willing to bet 80% of biodiversity being in native lands has more to do with how brutally they’ve been repressed than how “in tune” with the environment they are.
They’re people too, and I see little reason to believe they wouldn’t fall to the same human flaws as the rest of us if given the chance.
fossilesque@mander.xyz 1 day ago
It’s called Indigenous TEK and it’s pretty well established.
en.wikipedia.org/…/Traditional_ecological_knowled…
deranger@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Thank you for providing sources.
dumples@piefed.social 1 day ago
Except the fact we have lots of evidence that native population (which also includes pre-industrial European culture) built sustainable systems which includes altering the environment. Throughout North America there tons of evidence of the use of fire was used. The classic prairie environment of the Oak Savana is only possible through burns and supports a large buffalo population. There’s tons of evidence of strategic cultivation of trees and other plants within the Amazon rainforest that allow people to get food and medicine close by that to the untrained eye looks identical to the rest of the forest.
That being said some of those same people them destroy the same forest via slash and burn agriculture in order to earn a living for cash crops and more traditional agriculture. So profits is a main driver
deranger@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
This is exactly what I’m getting at. If these groups of humans were placed in the same scenarios that Europeans or other westerners were placed in, would they not be susceptible to the same greed that motivated them?
I do not deny that many native societies appear to live in more harmony with the environment than your average westerner. There is certainly a lot to learn there, and I believe we would do better if we emulated some of those characteristics. However, I think that we’re all susceptible to the same flaws, as we are all human.
Ultimately what I’m saying is I don’t think that natives have some superpower where they have figured out how to escape the flaws that have plagued humanity for thousands of years.
architect@thelemmy.club 1 day ago
95% of people can sing kumbaya in their little eco friendly circle jerk but if that 5% is over it and ready to fight over that belief the 95% better buck the fuck up and rise to the obvious existential threat in front of their fucking face or else they lose.
Oh look, that’s what happened.
bobzer@lemmy.zip 21 hours ago
What do you consider pre-industrial?
Agriculture directly led to the destruction of native biomes in any country that practiced it.
More people = more agriculture = more land cleared.
So long as most people who live die from avoidable famines, war and disease, then yes, it’s sustainable. But “in check” is probably the better term.
shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Many indigineous cultures uphold sustainability as a crucial part to their culture.
It is actually a common logical failing of Western culture to assume that everyone sees the world and interacts with it the way they do.
Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Many of every other nation, race, culture and creed do to.
See how the second sentence describes the crime you committed in the first?