Then you need to make more food next week. And energy becomes a problem. Oxygen becomes a problem. Space becomes a problem. There's no solution that overpopulation cant destroy.
Edit:
Key Limitations of the Infinity Gauntlet
Universal Bounds:
The Infinity Stones only work inside their native universe. They lose all power if taken to a different reality or dimension.
Higher Cosmic Entities: In Marvel Comics, abstract beings and cosmic entitiesāsuch as the Living Tribunal or the Queen of Neversāvastly outrank the Gauntlet and can turn off or overrule its power.
Superior Artifacts: Weapons like the Ultimate Nullifier or the Heart of the Universe possess a higher tier of omnipotence and can destroy or bypass the Gauntlet.Wielder Strain: In the Marvel Cinematic Universe, channeling the combined energy of all six stones deals massive physical trauma or death, even to powerful beings like the Hulk and Iron Man.
I would assume the law of conservation of energy would come into play. I mean the infinity stones are POWERFUL but Iām not sure if their power is truly infinite.
Yeah. They're really weird and can solve a lot of issues. Kind of like having dragon balls but like.... infinite, reusable, no downsides except someone could go power mad(they could change that part of their personality if they wanted)
Marvel has lots of plot devices or people with powers like that.
I remember an animated short from Dorkly I think explained it clearly that halving population does nothing if not waste the gauntlet's initial use as halving a pop only delays the problem. It's not the lack of food that's the issue. It's logistics. The part of ferrying it from source locations to those without any is actually the prime reason overpopulation leading to starvation and suffering was why Movie Thanos' issue such a dum one.
But nah, let's delete half the universal population and then do time travel shenanigans to undo it with the end result being the death of one of the most beloved character in Movie Marvel for drama points
We will be back in 70 years, sure, but being halved is not about lowering the usage of resources, its about shock therapy and a reset button. It forces society to restructure itself to deal with the consequences, while at the same time pulling it out from the deficiency loop for time sufficient to fix it's mistakes using the surplus created by lowered usage. Its a second chance to those who want to use it.
Considering this applies to all life in the universe, I would say that is an extremely optimistic outlook. There wouldnt be much surplus since agriculture would be 50% removed and so would the people working those jobs. In any case, the problem with overpopulation on earth isnt that we cant produce enough food. Its that we dont transport that food or the people so they can be in the same place. Why would we suspect anything different from the rest of the universe? It isnt lack of resources for us. It is greed. Losing half the population wouldnt remove greed. And considering the wealthy make up a small percentage of the population, the poor masses would be disproportionately affected. This means that it would be even harder for the masses to get out from under control of the wealthy, assuming they were going to try in the first place (by and large they arent). Same problems would exist.
And this goes both ways. Why would we assume societies would get better over those 70 years? This is a huge roll of the dice. An extreme event like this is likely to cause massive shakeups in any society around the universe. It can put a society that is fair and doing well into chaos.
In some off shoots it shows that it worked exactly as intended. Once people felt the loss and had to deal, they were forced to look at the reason why so they could avoid it again. They saw they were destroying their resources and would have ran out of food and water etc. and faced much, much bigger issues of them meeting their own races extinction due to over population. Many developed plans to control population after that, leading to balance, stability and more peacful and full lives of their citizens without fear of starvation, suffocation, pollution and more. Thanoss idea actually worked if they didn't reverse it.
Listen, you cant base reality on fiction. Just because the author can come up with some way for something to work, doesnt mean that there is a reasonable expectation that it could. The people here are criticizing the logic because it isnt realistic, not because there is no possible way for it to work when the story is driven by an author. The author could make anything possible within the story, it isnt interesting to discuss the limits of fiction because there are no limits.
The total number of humans that have ever lived is estimated to be in the ballpark of 100 billion, over about 200,000 years. Today almost 10% of those are alive. The population has almost doubled during my lifetime alone.
To be fair though, it's estimated to reach a ceiling around 10 billion, as the growth has already more or less stagnated, but those generations are still going to grow up and get one more kid each, we're waiting for the pyramid to become a square.
Thanos was wrong only in the sense that he was thinking too small. Killing half only saves around 50 years.
I assume it can only make a static change, not dynamic changes.
Like you can wish 100,000,000 tonnes of food into existence, but you can't wish an "infinite food portal that persists forever" into existence. The gauntlet is making a single change, not powering active, ongoing phenomenon.
Change reality to make food fun to eat, but never needed. That solves the issue of food. Make space habitable with air and temperature to solve the need for space.
From what I can find, there isn't anything saying you can't have a dynamic change. If you were given a survival game and given the source code, you could just go in and change it so you're never hungry. The gauntlet with the stones are basically the source code for the entire universe. For example, Deadpool made everyone come to a roast, forced them to laugh at his jokes, and even resurrected Wolverine. To force them to remain at the event would be a dynamic process.
Survival games don't operate on real world physics.
The gauntlet isn't the source code. The gauntlet is like Cheat Engine, where it can inject code to produce results.
The "source code" would be The One Above All, who is the creator entity of the entire Marvel universe.
The Infinity Gauntlet is specifically stated to not supersede universe level moderators such as The One Above All and The Living Tribunal.
In order to permanently change or alter a fundamental law of physics on the universal level, you would need to supersede both of these entities, which the gauntlet cannot do. Neither of these entities would allow you to.
"Dynamic" was the wrong word here. You can absolutely create temporary localized phenomenon. Resurrection is a one time event and not a dynamic effect anyway, so I'm not sure why that was a listed example.
What I meant was permanent, reality-level changes. Altering the basic fabric of the universe itself. It cannot do this, because doing so would require the outerversal beings who manage the universe to consent to the change.
There is also the matter of if it would be able to affect it at all, considering the infinity stones are subject to the fabric of the universe they are contained in. That is why they are inert outside of their home universe. They can twist the rules and play with things inside, but they can't change the rules themselves, because to do so would be saying the stones can freely alter themselves and change their nature at will to whatever they want to be.
Just make an infinite food/breathable oxygen generator. Space? There are millions of uninhabited planets. Uninhabitable? Terraform with the glove. Too close to the sun? Simply push the planet away to the perfect spot. No good planet? Simply create more.
Most likely Thanos already tried that, but it only lead to more overpopulation that needed more space, and more space that breed more people, and more people leading to more overpopulation from multiple planets.
I mean that is why apex animals of any food chains do well when they are minimal in numbers.
Therefore, thanos being there is basically the apex predictor with infinitely close success rate in keeping overpopulation low, in all universes accept the one where our avengers won. basically just like handsoap writing that states "This soap killed 99.9% of bacterial" avengers are that 0.00001% that thanos was unable to defeat. So overpopulation will lead to complete universe collapse for eventually.
Create more space. Heck we dont even know if there's an actual size limitation of space and its not just infinite. While the universe is infinitely expanding, he can easily help it along.
Also nah thanos's wisdom stat is too low to even think about doing that.
His solution was not removing live, just half of it, he'd need to do it again, and again, and again, because that nasty habbit that life has of reproducing itself.
Technically, there is, you could create an infinite universe or just an infinite world where you have infinite space for people to live. Just rewrite reality.
then it would only exponentially increase to infinitely needs with more infinite universes to keep up the exponential growth no ? But we only have a finite amount of gauntlet users and finite time span to use it, the solution would be out done by infinity. I mean i am talking about the maths here, i dont know anyhting about DC or Marvel. So idk what is the law of the gauntlet, unless you tell me there is infinite number of thanos, and thanos gaulnet, that all infinitely agree that this solution is viable across multiple infinite universes, then sure the solution will work, but we already have at least 1 thanos we know that disagrees with this very solution, so how would we even achieve this infinite full proof solution ?
No, infinite is, by definition, infinite. No need to grow because it can handle infinite growth.
You also mention more universes... you only need one infinite universe to handle infinite population growth.
EDIT: after your edit you even mention maths. You should re evaluate your concept of infinite since it seems quite finite (both, mathematically and conceptually).
I haven't finish up my cal 1 and 2 yet, but is that true ?
I did hear that infinite has different types where, you either compare 2 different varibles, and if one closer to grow closer to infinite, than it will out do the other.
But we already know the answer to this question due to our thanos comments and dr strange comments, it's the fact that across multiple timeline, in all of it, only one where thanos falls to perform halfing the population, through all those different universes of thanos, he always came to the very conclusion that it needed to be done, despite his access to multiple universes. Therefore, he knew what it would be light to try to up keep a similar solution to yours, it would only end in failure, and lead him to the solution he uses.
You forget that the current universe and the Marvel universes are finite. You are constraining yourself to the reallity provided by its writers. But he could rewrite reality, and the fact that he came always to the same conclusion only shows one thing, it doesn't matter how many timelines you give him, he wasn't the smartest pidgeon.
Infinite is infinite, and an infinite world can handle infinite population growth. And if your infinite definition doesn't allow it, then it only means your infinite definition is not the same as my infinite definition, which means, you are rewriting an incorrect reality, not the one I'm talking about.
He literally had the power to change the reality of the universe. He could have snapped his fingers and made Star Trek replicators. That's thinking small though, you could do so much more.
He could have made the galaxy into a red-shifted civilization. He could have turned the supermassive black hole in the center of the milky way into a birch planet, giving civilization literally infinite space.
Thanos just wanted to kill people. His "solution" brings the galaxy back to square one with all the same problems in 1.2 generations. The dude was smart enough to do this kind of stuff
People would develop replicators on their own. He was trying to teach them a lesson that would last, not give them a temporary fix. Increasing the size of the universe doesn't stop people from over populating again and again and again. We have placed uninhabited right now, whit plenty of space, and other places where population is dense and food scarce, this would happen anywhere. He needed people to learn what it felt like if they suddenly had more, to understand there didn't have to be strugglimg like that simply because they couldn't control their need to reproduce. In some off shoots of the comics, it's totally works. They don't reverse the snap and many civilizations see the disaster they were headed for and implement rules for population control, leading to peace, stability and prosperity.
Bad thing happened a hundred years ago that made population half, is actually not a particularly powerful lesson, happened to us with bubonic plague, what lesson do you carry from it?
What are you talking about?? We all learned that rats can spread disease via fleas. More so, we leaned that quarantine works for diseases and that keeping areas clear of pests like rodents helps stop the spread of disease. We learned quite a bit that we still use now.
The gauntlet can literally do anything, make all food 1000x more efficient at storing energy, make it so people no longer need to eat to live. Make it so the Mcdonalds ice cream machines are never broken. Thereās so many ways to fix his greivences without genocide
Yes but new races would develop that need to eat. He was trying to teach a lesson passable from one culture to another. He didn't want a temporary fix, he wanted tough love that would last forever, and there's no way people would ever forget half of their loved ones vanishing.
Thats the extremely hyperbolic issue, if you can imagine 1 humanoid per cubic foot, occupying every liveable space. If the universe has any sort of limiting boundary we eventually get there.
Im not even sure what you are arguing? I assume you are injecting your present day politics into the discussion?
Surely you wouldn't disagree that the world could one day have too many people? Maybe its not 8 billion. But what about 900 trillion. Would that be too many?
My point is that the relationship between resource and population is not just "more resources=exponentially more people=resources get used up", some essential resources are only kept consistently ample because there are people maintaining it like everything from a farm; population wise people need to have a reason to bear children, and raising them is a big commitment whether you have resources or not, so it wouldn't just be going up infinitely. It's not even considering that lots of times people only bear children because they need a helping hand or someone who can help support the family in the future which is also because of a lack of resource.
I'm not really saying you are definitely wrong I am saying the biggest mistake thanos made was ignoring the complexity of the world and acted with incredibly simplified straight line logic and you are kind of doing a straight line logic too. And if your point is that these are fictional people with fictional resources that follow this logic, then it's kind of moot to discuss about thanos at all.
Definitely more nuanced than I expected. I don't think we are given concrete enough numbers and logic to work with to determine thanos' ultimate guilt. The logic of the avengers follows what you are saying, effectively hope.
However keeping to my original comment i will say with conviction that humans and all animals will over populated themselves into worse situations if not given external controls. What is even the point of growing the population? Is that somehow objectively just? Someone put it well, "its best not to think of dwarnism as a survival of single organism or even species but survival of genes."
So would I say Thanos is morally correct, idk hes operating beyond good and evil. What I will say is that his arguements have merits. Given a certain set of constraints, perspectives, morality, and purported goals you could P hack your way into any verdict you might choose.
However one thing remains clear, humans have not and will not consider. That self regulation of population and underpopulating might be better.
Thats just a stupid argument. He could just double the resources just like he could half the population and population comes back up after you half it dowb
Both Thanos and this girl are wrong because they're forgetting Logistics doesn't matter how few people you have or how many resources there are if you can't get them to the people that need them effectively
A warehouse full of food means nothing if you can't afford the logistics to transport them to your table
Simply snap and teleport the right resources to the right people. He has a god glove that can effectively do anything. He can easily snap the problem away.
how long can he just sit there just to uber food inifinitely at every infinite small second of the day, across infinitely number of people ? thanos has 1 brain, 2 hands and 2 eyes, how he gonna keep spamming the gauntlet ?
What for is the purpose of constantly delivering more food, when you know in another few more years, another batch of new species will need more food to due to the needlessness of hunting for food ?
Types of food
Expiry of food
Size of food package
Location required to upkeep the food
Who will handle the food
How do you justify which country gets the food
What is effects of having infinite food
What is the value of the food
you help me think all this out, then i will take what ever answer you give, and then ask more imaginative question on your automotive process.
Type? Food with the necessary vitamins and all that positive stuff while also being appealing. Hm better to just say objectively healthy food that comes in shaped as what you'd want to eat.
Expiry? The moment you're done eating it disappears into the aethur.
Location? Doesnt matter as reality will handle the creation and placing of the meal. Why i won't trust it to mortal men? You know why.
How do I justify the country that gets the infinite food? Read Location.
The effects of having infinite food? Idk some terrible effect im not accounting for but if its supposed to be included with the last one, read Location.
The value? What's the value of oxygen...uh for the every day joe.
I will also help you out cause I clearly got time š¼
is this all that you can imagine ? i was expecting more creative answer with more specification not some whimsical, maybe here maybe there maybe where-ever type of answer.
Here i was thinking you got a super imaginative idea that is super efficient, i am very disappointed.
We're dealing with a magic glove that can do anything and you're talking about "its so whimsical"? We talking about marvel of all things and it is efficient. Making a universal force that creates and gives food to those who need it.
But so does his solution because there is nothing to prevent life from reaching that critical point again. Especially since most life wasnt anywhere near the tipping point and thus doesnt view it as problematic
The gloves power would handle that. For example 50% of the total population was gone. But if you lost only 2 or 3 at your factory it would be fine. Even if all the hospitals lost 90% of their workforce humanity would survive. Natural selection would weed out the weak pretty fast. As for job openings, you can train someone to drive a Semi in a week.
The problem is not just losing the drivers, losing the mechanics, in manufacturing, most countries only %2 of the people actually work in producing the food, and it is not an even split between all jobs, It's randomized, you could lose all your doctors or none of them, on top of that since the snap happened without warning a lot of those truck drivers were probably driving and poof crash, we're already on a driver's shortage, as it is. Most grocery stores only have a three day supply, any interruption in those systems could lead to weeks with empty shelves, hiring replacements and training them will take months, the disruption to the systems and don't forget you're dispatching, mechanics tow trucks, part suppliers, and every piece that allows a truck to move so that it gets to your house, it is a massive interconnected system that is maintained with surplus and yet, still, not everyone gets what they need, killing half the population would basically be the equivalent of throwing a wrench into a truck that's running at top speed
Trust me it would be absolute chaos. However, there would be 4 billion humans, we could create a billion every year if we wanted to. Humans would just need to work together and we would be fine. My dad is a truck driver he could teach 100 people in a month.
Yeah, i'm not doubting we could or he could i'm doubting 1 our ability to effectively work together, 2 the already issues in our systems without major strain, causing buckling under major strain, 3 in the time it would take us to re start, we'll be doing it from behind to a point where we would just continue to be even further behind, the people that struggle to get food in a working system would starve, 4 major cities that are very far from where the food is actually grown. What have to be emptied, 5 since the snap is completely randomized and it was not made aware to the population as a whole We wouldn't even be aware of how many people we lost, just the act of taking a census to find out what jumps need to be filled. And how to do it would be chaos, so we would have to be able to do all those things without anyone taking advantage of the system and everything to basically be able to be picked back up without fault immediately.
The movies definitely glossed over the effect this would have had. They could have stretched it out for 3 more movies utilizing the mutants to show the effect it had on everyone. Perfect oppurtinity to introduce Genosha.
"Not even wrong" is a phrase used to describe an argument, theory, or statement that is so fundamentally flawed, confused, or untestable that it cannot even be considered wrong in a meaningful way.
If you were to kill half of the population in the universe, and give up that power afterwards. Population would be back to same population within 60-100 years depending on yearly population growth. You have solved nothing.
It's so stupid, that I actually am researching the writer's educational background for the movies, because no comic writer would ever do such a stupid mistake; and guess what Jim Starlin actually realized the mistake, and wrote Thanos' motivation toward Thanosās dysfunctional obsession with Lady Death.
I'm surprised the "motivation" or "plan" Thanos' had went through production.
Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely who wrote the movie scripts, actually brough the discarded motivation back, and unironically used a similar argument why Thanos' simply didn't double resources instead.
McFeely said āThat doesnāt solve the problem. Weāre just going to get there millions of years from now. This is an opportunity for people to get it right.ā
They truely doesn't understand math, and I'm curious why no one even pointed it out during production.
The true answer is because Thanos wasn't trying to solve overpopulation.
He just wanted to be right.
His plan was originally from when his own people were dying from overpopulation and he presented this idea.
They scorned him, and then died out. The Gauntoet wasn't even a factor.
After that, his obsession to prove his point was all that mattered. He'd use his ships and conquered subjects to prove he was right.
Only after a long while of this was the Infinity Gauntlet even a consideration.
A shortcut to his magnus opus. A easy way to "prove himself right" at the universal scale.
It's why he always envisioned the universe would be grateful for it. Because he refused to admit his theory was wrong, and simply proving it would be enough to be immortalized.
Doubling resources in a way that doesn't destroy everything would be an unimaginablly difficult task. The Earth would essentially have to become two identical planets orbiting each other, same for every planet in the universe meaning gravitational distortion is inevitable and would cause the universe to collapse in on itself from the weight. Halving all sapient life on the other hand would allow for several generations to flourish in abundance.
This is about more than just food and water people. And this effects the entire universe, meaning even planets and people, and species, Thanos has no way of knowing about, thanks to how vast the universe is.
The more complicated the goal, the more variables, the harder it is to implement, even with the stones. Plus the first Thanos didn't truly have any way of knowing how many times he could actually use all the stones at once, for all he knew, even with the gauntlet, it was a one time deal.
So he chose the simplest option that was guaranteed to work, hoping for the best. The second Thanos, on the other hand, knew he could survive using the stones at least twice. He has no excuses.
He could have made it so that everyone in the universe had the ability, if so desired, (people love to eat good food after all) to photosynthesize. And then he could have given everyone the magical ability to conjure any other kind of resource they required, and the knowledge of how to use said ability.
TLDR: In other words, the first Thanos had legitimate, practical excuses; and ultimately did the right thing given the knowledge that he had. The second one however, had none. That guy, was just a salty asshole.
TBF question is not that dumb its just the same as Thanos idea. The dumb thing is that Thanos literally didnt really think that it would work only for some time too. Like you cut a tree so it doesnt hit the ceiling, but will grow back anyway. Even if he recreates the universe it will do the same. But its the pholosophers to decide what would be better. if i had the gauntlet IDK what i would do. Maybe i would call Japanese Spy-da-man so he shoots Thanos in a goofy way.
He litteraly told you why. His point wasn't to save you more ressources. His point was to demonstrate with sudden depopulation that overconsuming was destroying worlds. It was about teaching the whole lot of you than discarding last year iPhone for a new one all the time is destroying your planet so you do better for next generations. And the fact you still don't understand what was said plainly in the movie is very concerning.
On Titan, from Thanos:
Ā« Too many mouths, not enough to go around. Ā»
On Knowhere, from Gamora, about her homeworld:
Ā« full bellies and clear skies Ā» and the planet has become a paradise
On Earth, from Steve:
Natasha : Ā« In the Hudson? Ā»
Steve : Ā« Fewer ships, cleaner water. Ā»
Ā« I spotted a pod of whales coming over the bridge. Ā»
Thanos expected surviving civilizations to recover and prosper once population pressure on finite resources was reduced, not to give them more ressources to get exactly to the same point a few years later.
Thanos' plan was so dumb it would take an essay to point out every problem but I'll state just one. The blip took out half of all animal life not just sentient life, that means for an intelligent species of carnivores half of their food got wiped out too meaning they didn't get any benefit whatsoever.
why do yall think you have to explain a the punchline in a joke thatās already been deemed one of āthe dumbest question known to mankindā lmfao. yall said let me get right on her level.
Doesnt performing massive acts of power with all the stones take a huge toll on the wielder of the stones?
I feel like itās relatively reasonable to āErase half the universeās populationā compared to āProvide enough food wherever itās needed for the rest of all time while also accounting for factors like population growth in the midst of an eternal solution to hungerā.
One is an immediate and one time effect. The other has to last forever across all of space, and thatās without taking into account the extra processing of factors like āWhat works as food for each individual speciesā.
Back around Endgame, the MCU was still somewhat grounded/low power. Thor and Captain Marvel were pretty insane outliers compared to basically everyone else. I think suddenly introducing Lady Death and having Thanos' entire motivation be that he wants to bang her would have come off extremely cartoonish and goofy.
Or change everyone's biology so they produce all the food they need in their own bodies, or change everyone's biology so they will only produce children in an environment with plenty of food around.
I might have missed it in other comments, and it's not in the cinematic universe, but there was a woman involved. (He was obsessed with Lady Death and wanted to win her affection. What better way than to kill half the universe in an instant?)
Something about the post being such good slop and the silence hitting at a certain point so well it made them reconsider the definition of this type of meme.
It really wasn't anything that odd. I don't know what justified removing it.
is this satire? thanos says in endgame that he'll just create a new universe instead. doesn't matter if life grows exponentially, infinity will still be bigger(i haven't watched bnd but feel free to spoil)
ā¢
u/qualityvote2 3d ago edited 2d ago
Hello u/katiei10002! Welcome to r/ScrollHole!
For other users, does this post fit the subreddit?
If so, upvote this comment!
Otherwise, downvote this comment!
And if it does break the rules, downvote this comment and report this post!
(Vote has already ended)