*Fewer humans, and that would actually solve most of our problems, it’s just that we need to be more specific about which humans we get rid of. Specifically billionaires/unchecked capitalists.
Real talk
Submitted 2 weeks ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/2bba7e14-9e56-4cd1-845c-8e0de7c068fe.jpeg
Comments
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
There were fewer humans a century ago. and there were no human caused ecological crisis back then.
it isn’t the number of people really, but the exploitative economic system they use.
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
No human caused ecological crises during the height of industrialization? Sure bud.
Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Ha ha you got me in the first half there
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
There were also infinitely fewer people concerned about humans’ ecological impact and no effective way to change that. Now we have millions and millions of people all over the world worried about it and we are all interconnected via the internet. We caused a mass extinction with a million of us in disparate tribes, just imagine what we could accomplish if all 8 billion of us actually worked together toward changing the world for the better! Unfortunately we’re still stuck in stupid tribes, and the most powerful tribe that controls every aspect of life in every other tribe is obsessed with destroying the Earth at a never-ending, ever-increasing pace. Here in America, our ruling class is literally trying to bring about the apocalypse. But naw, getting rid of them couldn’t possibly lead to any kind of benefit, we better get let them burn it all down in the name of line-go-up 🙄🙄🙄
lmmarsano@group.lt 2 weeks ago
Specifically billionaires/unchecked capitalists
The easy scapegoat oversimplifies the problem, which goes beyond & predates capitalism. Though exterminating all of humanity is one way to achieve sustainability, it doesn’t necessarily require it. So far, however, humanity has reached living standards beyond subsistence only by consuming resources at unsustainable levels faster than the planet can replenish, and that has been true regardless of economic system. Even when living at subsistence levels, humanity has likely caused mass extinction events.
From a comment to a similar post
People here tend to fixate on their pet theories that scapegoat capitalism for everything including that humanity’s drain on ecological resources exceeds Earth’s rate of regeneration without acknowledging that their alternatives don’t address the problem, either.
Although governments are far more able than individuals and firms acting singly to take action to protect the environment, they often fail to do so. The centrally planned economies of Eastern Europe, where governments controlled production, had a particularly poor record on pollution control. Per capita mortality from air pollution in Eastern Europe (outside the EU) and China remains high relative to the EU and North America.
In particular, the Soviet economy—with constitutional guarantees to continuously improve living standards & steadily grow productive forces—caused disproportionately worse ecological damage than the US’s. All economic systems have the same capacity to degrade the environment & deplete stocks of natural resources. Without adequate policies to protect the environment, improving & maintaining living standards with the continuous economic growth necessary to do that threatens the environment.
Moreover, human activity before capitalism has led to extinctions of megafauna, plants, & animals dependent on those plants. The quaternary megafauna extinction was likely driven by overhunting by humans. Those extinctions & increased fires coinciding with the arrival of humanity to Australia transformed the ecosystem from mixed rainforest to drier landscapes. Aboriginal landscape burning
may have caused the extinction of some fire-sensitive species of plants and animals dependent upon infrequently burnt habitats
More recently, they killed off the elephant bird likely due to major environmental alterations & overconsumption of their eggs.
Until humanity starts living sustainably, they are the problem.
Allero@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
A socialist society can be ecologically devastating. But, unlike capitalist one, it doesn’t have to be.
Capitalism pursues infinite growth in a finite world. As long as unsustainable practices deliver you more (which is extremely often the case) - they will be pursued, and if you block them all, it will cripple the economy as it will lower the expectation of profit. Capitalism breeds practices like planned obsolescence, aggressive marketing and tracking to fuel overconsumption, it promotes a lavish lifestyle - all to ensure the monetary flow necessary to keep such economy afloat.
Socialist society is more adaptive in this regard. You can ramp up production and overconsumption, Earth be damned, or you can slow down and invest in long-term, sustainable solutions, even at the expense of short-term returns. The latter, however, means getting less competitive internationally, which is exactly the sacrifice the socialist countries of the past, including USSR, were not willing to make.
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
'Someone tried once and did it wrong, so it must be impossible. 🤷♂️"
zedcell@lemmygrad.ml 2 weeks ago
Marx was talking about capitalists raping the soil to the point of destruction in 1860 lil pup
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Meme is accurate. I am weird and misanthropic.
BillyClark@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Yeah, I was going to say that there is nothing inherently illogical about the misanthropic person, despite what the meme implies.
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I just wonder if non-misanthropes have actually met people or if they’ve got this idealized view of them.
sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
Just uhh, don’t look at all the things we’re doing for infinite growth. The beef industry is totally a normal thing to inflict on an environment
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Well we needed something to replace all the native ruminants we brutally slaughtered.
joostjakob@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Do we?
Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
If we’re a part of nature, everything we do is also a part of nature, it’s just that we have the capacity to understand the consequences of humanity’s actions on the rest of nature
sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
I mean if you want to generalize, mass extinction events are also an occurrence in nature even when we’re not involved. I think the hope of environmental endeavors is to try and preserve as much as we can, which our current population growth and desired goals of wealth just will not do.
Hylactor@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
Connection between the human development index (HDI) and total fertility rate (TFR)
The human development index has three components -GDP per capita is one of them, life expectancy is the second and the education level - the third. As all these factors are negatively correlated with fertility
pageflight@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Generally seems like the right message, but there are plenty of third factors that might be a more direct cause — amount of drugs, microplastics, pesticides, etc in the environment / food.
Sunsofold@lemmings.world 2 weeks ago
Real talk? Missing the third group that groups the other two under the same heading for political expediency. The bottom group is essentially never sincerely grouped with the top.
someguy3@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
If everyone on the planet lived like an American… Yikes.
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
I was going to say “there wouldn’t be a planet for long”, but that’s not true. The planet would heal from the booboo relatively quick.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 2 weeks ago
Most people who say humanity is an invasive species are actually just talking about white people. They’re erasing the harmony between Indigenous peoples and nature that in Australia has lasted for tens of thousands of years.
Yet if you say white people are an invasive pest… /joking
lmmarsano@group.lt 2 weeks ago
From earlier comment on similar post
Moreover, human activity before capitalism has led to extinctions of megafauna, plants, & animals dependent on those plants. The quaternary megafauna extinction was likely driven by overhunting by humans. Those extinctions & increased fires coinciding with the arrival of humanity to Australia transformed the ecosystem from mixed rainforest to drier landscapes. Aboriginal landscape burning
may have caused the extinction of some fire-sensitive species of plants and animals dependent upon infrequently burnt habitats
More recently, [indigenous people] killed off the elephant bird likely due to major environmental alterations & overconsumption of their eggs.
and I see like before the same OP still won’t do the decency to support fellow humans by following web accessibility. That sums up our conviction of humanity.
MerryJaneDoe@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Personally, I prescribe to Carlin’s philosophy. The problem will take care of itself.
Juice@midwest.social 2 weeks ago
Good post
asdasd201@lemmygrad.ml 2 weeks ago
Ecosocialism vs. Ecofascism
I believe if we get rid of some people, the world will become more sustainable.
JizzmasterD@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
There aren’t actually many cool hats
happybadger@hexbear.net 2 weeks ago
Urban ecology is the proof of dialectics.
zenzanzoo@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I hate all extremists, left and right.
Ephera@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
I don’t feel like these positions are at odds with one another, unless you become active in reducing the number of humans, of course.
Like, you can uplift and protect people by stopping them from killing their environment, because you recognize that people are an invasive species that will do that.
stabby_cicada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Also I depicted Cool hats