361
who did that?!
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
361 points (85.6% liked)
The memes of the climate
1543 readers
129 users here now
The climate of the memes of the climate!
Planet is on fire!
mod notice: do not hesitate to report abusive comments, I am not always here.
rules:
-
no slurs, be polite
-
don't give an excuse to pollute
-
no climate denial
-
and of course: no racism, no homophobia, no antisemitism, no islamophobia, no transphobia
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
any policy of population control is necessarily eugenecist. you can personally favor it, but kindly keep it away from politics.
It's not eugenics, by definition, if it doesn't favor any specific traits. I never suggested anything like that at all.
And sorry, discussion of population controls need to enter politics as that is literally the only meaningful way to fight climate change.
But yeah, I'm not hopeful lol so you don't have much to worry about. We will probably just continue to not take any meaningful action and continue to destroy our climate and world.
what policy can you introduce that doesn't favor a specific trait?
A randomized lottery system.
who gets enrolled?
Literally everyone in the age range to be a potential parent. Perhaps drawn once a year. The winners can have children this year, while the others cannot. If both people in a couple win they can have two or something. Non-heteronormative couples and artificial insemination is fine. If someone wins and chooses not to have children that year or is unable for whatever that's completely fine.
how do you know where everyone is? what if someone is unaware of the lottery system?
Those questions also apply to ideas like democracy or public education... but I still think those things are pretty good ideas.
All systems/ideas have implementation issues in real life. But the whole point of a randomized lottery system is to intentionally not select specific traits as much as possible. And the goal would be to continually improve this hypothetical system, constantly trying to determine if there was a trait being favored and what adjustments are needed to prevent it.
And even something as simple as enforcing a camp fire ban during a high risk dry spell also has issues with 'how do you know where everyone is...to see if they are having a campfire' and 'what if they don't know about the ban?'. But the general concept still seems like a good idea to me.
this isn't a campfire ban: it's genocide
if one country did this it's genocide against that country. if a pact of countries agree, it's still genocide against them. and if every government agreed, there are still people's who will not be effected.
every way you slice it, it's genocide. stop trying to figure out how to do genocide the right way.
I'm only suggesting this in an all countries agree environment, otherwise it's pointless. The other countries with the infinite growth mindset will always out compete the ones with population controls in place. And then take those resources by force. And even if they didn't, the atmosphere is shared and there is no way around that.
And genocide against who exactly? Everyone? There is no group being specifically targeted which is a requirement to meet the definition of genocide.
the group who can be reached by governments.
stop trying to figure out how to do genocide the right way and just don't do genocide at all.
If you call this genocide, then by your definition I fully support genocide. I just don't support it by the actual definition.
Population control measures are the most ethical action we can take with the least amount of human suffering resulting from it. Unchecked population growth, destruction of the planet, and ever growing economic/resource inequality is what we already have going on right now. It's the status quo. And it is far far less ethical to support such a system which is creating immense suffering right now. As such, I will not stop trying to figure out how to do something that is inherently positive and ethical.
you're still going to have enclaves of resistance, resulting in a genocide of those who comply.
Ok, and there are enclaves of people in support pedophilia and rape and marrying 12 year olds and shit. But when the majority of a population votes in favour of a law against such things, well...fuck em. Sorry. That's democracy and it's the best we got.
I will not support the population control measures I am proposing unless it occurs through democratic agreement.
We already do this for literally all other laws and regulations. Not sure what your issue is.
And I don't suppose you have any meaningful solutions to the climate crisis that can actually be implemented?
there's better.
how magnanimous of you. as long as 50%+1 of the people favor genocide, you're on board.
i don't like genocide.
Yes. That's democracy. I certainly prefer it to trusting you to be a benevolent dictator. Is there another alternative to decision making I'm not aware of?
i prefer consent and consensus, but i'd also prefer that genocide architects fuck right off, and we see how that goes.
So I an overly simplified world where only 10 people exist. 2 of them support marrying 12 year olds (so...you know, rape). And 8 of them want to ban it.
What do you suggest we do here?
i don't care to engage in your rape fantasies after you went so mask-off about authoritarianism and genocide, thank you.
Copy. You support people being able to marry 12 year olds under the guise of cultural relativism, even despite a majority seeing it for the horror that it is. Whereas I dont. Nothing else to discuss then.
this is as bad faith as it gets.