• minorkeys@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1·
    2 months ago

    If we start with those that consume the most and pollute the most then we might not need half, right? So that means we start with the wealthiest, yes?

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      2 months ago

      Sure. Just don’t eat them.

      That’s junk food, and eating junk food is bad. Instead, compost and eat the veggies

    • Grail@multiverse.soulism.netEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      Here’s a fun fact: if you’re one of those people who thinks killing people is the correct solution to the climate crisis, you should know that you only have to kill one American to get the same reduction in pollution as killing ten congonese people. Please use this information however you like.

      • CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        Here is another fun fact, killing people is one of the favorite deliberate mischaracterizations of the degrowth movement that advocates for a lower population through fewer births. Not murder. We don’t even have to force it. It’s hapening already if you look at birth rates.

        • Grail@multiverse.soulism.netEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          Personally, My interpretation of degrowth is more bicycles and less plastic crap. I don’t think legislating birth rates will ever be an efficient strategy.

    • NeilBrü@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      I know you’re joking,

      spoiler

      Press X to Doubt

      but what’s your plan when it comes time to “reduce” the children? Gas chambers? Firing squads? Strangle them as you look into their eyes?

      • TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        1·
        2 months ago

        We already elected Trump, Putin, Modi, Xi, Netanyahu. Phase one is done. Children are already being killed by the hundred thousands (Palestine, canceling USAID, etc). Next phase: final world war, total annihilation. Give Earth another 1000 to 10.000 years to recover after humans have been wiped out.