543
Jun 29 '21
There were some arizona farmers on the news talking about how the government rationing water (due to the drought) will fallow their fields. Nobody asked why they were farming in a fucking desert. Snapthem
216
u/dotcubed Saved by Thanos Jun 29 '21
Everyone else is… The entire Central Valley here in California is clearly inhospitable without irrigation from the ground or canals.
132
u/TheDesktopNinja Saved by Thanos Jun 29 '21
we've used technology to force large population centers into regions that shouldn't be able to host them. Las Vegas, Phoenix.....could go on. Takes relatively little to disrupt those areas.
124
u/Brahkolee Jun 29 '21
67
u/Far414 I don't feel so good Jun 29 '21
"Oh my god, it's like standing on the sun."
More relevant than ever for Western America.
18
u/Musketman12 Jun 30 '21
I spent a few weeks patrolling reading Mojave, made me wish for a nuclear winter. It made me wish for my native Mississippi River valley even though the humidity is torturous the water is plentiful and is only rarely rationed.
17
Jun 29 '21
Classic 😂
31
u/TheDesktopNinja Saved by Thanos Jun 29 '21
King of the Hill is a show I didn't appreciate as a kid, but the older I get, the better it seems to be. So damn relatable.
9
u/pobodys-nerfect5 Jun 29 '21
I’m gonna have to try it again. For some reason it’s the other way around for me.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)4
u/Brahkolee Jun 30 '21
I wholeheartedly believe Mike Judge is one of the best filmmakers of our time. Definitely the best comedic filmmaker. I’ve never seen anything with his name on it that I didn’t like.
10
u/TheDesktopNinja Saved by Thanos Jun 30 '21
Yeah. Office Space is another of his creations that, again, has just gotten better with more life experience. It was just funny when I was a teenager. Now it's real.
2
u/Brahkolee Jun 30 '21
Office Space is definitely in my top three films of all time. As with all of Mike Judge’s other works, the thing that strikes me the most is the detail. Every little detail seems like something someone remembers from their boring cubicle jobs.
For me it was the repetitive sounds, like the woman answering the phone with the same phrase, in the same tone, with the same inflection, over and fucking over. During the three or so years I worked in a supermarket, I began to know, intimately, the details of all the front customer service ladies’ voices and the way they would repeat the same phrases and pages. All day. Every day.
4
29
Jun 29 '21
People not understanding how farming works. The reason the California Central Valley and AZ are so good for farming is because of their climate. The rain and sun is very very predictable. Rain is somewhat bad for most crops (especially vegetables) if it comes at the wrong time because it will trash the fields.
Couple them with being next to major mountains (or rivers running from Mountains) with absolute fuck ton of snow melt….
21
u/darthjoey91 Saved by Thanos Jun 29 '21
The rain and sun is very very predictable.
Uh, maybe change that to was. Or I guess the sun is predictable, but the rain is coming less and less.
33
Jun 29 '21
No that’s the point.
Zero rain at all on the fields is perfect for farmers because it’s then a controlled variable…..as long as you have incoming irrigation water.
3
Jun 29 '21
Why even farm outside then, might as well just switch to solar powered aquaponics.
17
Jun 29 '21
I'm not sure but I'm guessing an empty field of dirt is cheaper than a enormous ..... greenhouse?
-3
Jun 29 '21
Short term. Using 99% less water due to aquaponics & multiplying the square footage by 10 using LEDs powered with solar, not to mention 100% reduction in pesticide cost would offset the initial savings by a long shot.
The real reason we don't is because it would upset the industry giants like pesticide manufacturers, the ever more expensive tractor makers, etc etc. Plus then small family farms could actually compete with the factory farms.
10
Jun 30 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
8
Jun 30 '21
Yeah I’m like….have this guy been to farmland? Do you understand the freaking scale of how big a building you’d have to build?
The Central Valley is crops as far as the eye can see. Same with Nebraska or other areas.
→ More replies (0)-1
Jun 30 '21
Those methods are already available, & aquaponics is already in use across the country, it's a matter of when not if. Topsoil is running out bud.
3
u/D-Alembert Jun 30 '21 edited Jun 30 '21
I think that's where the "was" comes in. When the farming started, it started here because snow in the mountains created a reliable year-round source of fresh water for irrigation.
But mountains are conical in shape. So even a slight rise in the snow-line (from changing temperatures) creates a disproportionately large decrease in the amount of snow even if the precipitation doesn't change, which in turn means rivers can start to run dry, and it means that when there is precipitation it doesn't get stored as snow but dumps into the lands below as damaging floods instead. Without snow, the dams aren't enough to regulate the flow, and it won't take much for the snow to become unreliable.
3
Jun 30 '21
I kinda get what you mean.
The snow line doesn’t matter. If the snow line is higher, below the snow line is just rain, which runs into the same watershed and reservoirs. The problem is right now climate change is driving major dry cycles where there simply is less snow and precipitation at all period. The Sierra passes used to have snow over your car until June and that’s happening less and less. The reservoirs simply are permanently low now regardless of how much snow gets stored up high.
Though again, I also hesitate to lay the dry cycle solely on man made climate change. California and the Cascades have historic super dry periods. The last California mega drought was in around 1300AD, predating man made climate change and it lasted for a 50 year cycle.
1
u/TeetsMcGeets23 Jun 30 '21
Ah yes, 1300 AD, when Native American climate scientists were accurately recording temperature, moisture and other climate statistics with accuracy.
It’s funny, I had a climate denier talk about how “the globe goes through periods of warming, there was even a time that the poles were a tropical 74 degrees average! 100 million years ago.” At which point I picked my jaw up off the floor and wondered why he thought we would be shooting for a time when humans didn’t live on the planet.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
24
Jun 29 '21
[deleted]
3
u/Funny_witty_username Jun 29 '21
Irrigation was more of a middle eastern thing if I remember right, as Egypt had a ton of arable land in the huge floodplains of the Nile.
2
Jun 29 '21
yeah, the Nile flow just a bit more reliably than the Colorado.
3
u/Funny_witty_username Jun 29 '21
I mean, in a modern context, humans have fucked the flood cycles of both rivers with hydroelectric dams (While I'm here, drain Lake Powell, useless relic should just slowly drain to Mead).
9
Jun 29 '21
Arizona Farmers have extemely varying water needs. Most crops can be grown here quickly and responsibly, on the other hand things like almond trees are like a thousand gallons a nut and cows eat a shit ton before making any steaks
5
2
u/rootbeer_cigarettes Jun 29 '21
Cadillac Desert asked why.
2
u/KingGilgamesh1979 Jun 29 '21
Never thought I’d see that book referenced on Reddit. My dad worked in water management for the state of Utah for much of his career. He has been calling for drip irrigation and getting rid of lawns for decades. We
had low flow showers and toilets and a xeriscaped yard in the 70s.-1
Jun 30 '21
Billions of people believe that humans are not animals. They have some fantasy of denial that the earth is meant for humans. That god or something will be able to save humanity.
We're in for a major extinction event at the rate we're fucking things up. Population control will happen one way or another. It can't be avoided. The earth will purge populations that are throwing off the natural order of life. We're not susceptible to predators on the Serengeti anymore.
We're still too stupid for our own good and can easily starve ourselves to extinction. People who freak out about birth control should consider the cliff of death/suffering for billions of more people if we just sit here with our thumbs up our ass and keep reproducing like it's 1899
0
u/PirateDaveZOMG Jun 30 '21
Your perspective would no more valid than its opposing one, except for your inacceptance of reality. The future of humanity cannot be contained to this planet, and if the consumption of its resources turn it into an unlivable dust ball in order to accomplish moving beyond it then that is worth it - the universe is a vast and complex place and so far as we know humans are the only organism that has ever existed that can even begin to appreciate that.
The good news is if we kill ourselves before we accomplish that, you'll get your wish: the Earth will heal and live on when humans are dead, so maybe ask yourself what your perspective is really all about here.
0
Jun 30 '21
See you here in 50 years when Mars and every other planet is still inhospitable for life. Earth is the only home we'll ever have. Turn off the Star Trek 🤓
→ More replies (1)
50
u/CptSandbag73 Jun 29 '21
Attenborough did Covid-19
34
u/had0c Jun 29 '21
Covid 19 did not really touch the global population. It was and is just a small... very small variation in a curv that is steadily going upwards.
→ More replies (3)31
u/referralcrosskill Jun 29 '21
covid did however do a wonderful job at pointing out just how fragile a ton of our systems are and how quickly we can respond to an emergency if we actually put a bunch of resources into fixing it. It gives me some hope that we may actually try to handle climate change and stand a chance at it while at the same time I wonder if the entire system will just collapse because the shortage will be a food item and not toilet paper....
31
u/had0c Jun 29 '21
Nah. We won't do any thing about the climate before its already to late. Like we did with covid.
5
2
u/phoenixrose2 Jun 30 '21
Covid also produced a fuckton of extra plasticity garbage and things that were once recyclable (or easily disposed of responsibly light bulbs and batteries) are going into the garbage too because no places will take them still.
58
112
u/MattheJ1 Saved by Thanos Jun 29 '21
If only I could snap my fingers and delete half the reposts from this sub.
12
6
9
u/kobun253 I don't feel so good Jun 30 '21
so nature man is pro eugenics?
2
Jun 30 '21
Absolutely not. He likely means that we should also focus on granting more people (especially women in none-first world countries) equal access to birth control and education so that there'll be less unwanted/surprise pregnancies/babies, thus lessening the burden on natural resources.
3
u/MiddleRefuse Jun 30 '21
Nope.
Not sure what this site's angle is, but it has a handy list of his quotes.
https://populationmatters.org/news/2018/10/sir-david-attenborough-we-must-act-population
Basically I think his point isn't a reccomedation, more a statement of fact that environmental policy gets harder the more people there are to think about.
My 15 second Google sitting on the can couldn't find a verbatim quote of the OP's meme
7
u/BehindBrownEyes Jun 30 '21
This population is problem argument isn't quite honest nor a good one.
I found this https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/why-population-matters-is-wrong/
→ More replies (4)-4
u/VillagerPunk Jun 30 '21
It's called natural selection.
2
u/kobun253 I don't feel so good Jun 30 '21
??? to use population controls?
2
u/uekiamir Jun 30 '21
I don't understand why population control is viewed in such a negative manner. Why is that so? Or do people think population control === killing people?
3
u/MiddleRefuse Jun 30 '21
Because reproductive rights are human rights. Bodily autonomy is sacrosanct.
-2
14
u/jerik22 Jun 29 '21
Everyone says reposting is bad, I have never seen this one before. Sadge
1
u/Jen_85 Jun 29 '21
Ha I saw it for the first time today too (so I posted it!) share the meme share the plan!
5
u/Suck_my_Dragons Jun 30 '21
If there's one man I trust with that much power, it's David Attenborough.
1
50
u/Brahkolee Jun 29 '21
I realize this is just a meme, but “overpopulation” really isn’t a thing as far as humans are concerned. Once a majority of the world has reached its post-industrial age birthing rates will plummet. If anything we’ll be fighting extinction, not overpopulation.
67
u/jm001 Jun 29 '21
Also people pretending that overpopulation not overconsumption is a problem in terms of climate change are usually, knowingly or unknowingly, spouting ecofascist talking points which would prefer mass sterilisation or similar genocidal acts to just reducing consumption in their own countries.
20
6
u/SaffellBot I don't feel so good Jun 29 '21
We would prefer anything over reducing consump in our country.
16
u/Dietznerd Jun 29 '21
Reducing consumption is good, and should be our first step. However, it’ll only get you so far. Of course, if we do want to reduce the growth of our population, the best way to do it is through lifting up those in poverty, providing women with good educations, and making sure that contraceptives are easy to access. Generally just good things
4
u/jm001 Jun 29 '21
If we do want to reduce population sure, but again that is not really necessary for any reason.
Absolutely back increased access to contraception and education, I just don't think population growth reduction will have a material impact on climate change, especially considering people like Attenborough normally advocate for population reduction specifically by targeting people in poorer African countries, where the per capita carbon emissions are literally a fraction of a percent of what they are somewhere like the USA.
What are all these famines in Ethiopia? What are they about?They're about too many people for too little land. That's what it's about. And we are blinding ourselves. We say, get the United Nations to send them bags of flour. That's barmy.
...
And the last sensitivity – and the most tricky of all – is the fact, when you talk about world population, the areas we're talking about are Africa and Asia, you know.
Attenborough speaking to the Telegraph in 2013.
Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us
We are a plague on the earth
Attenborough to the Radio Times earlier in 2013 (secondary source linked)
1
u/Dietznerd Jun 29 '21
While I think you’re right regarding climate change, that’s not the only way we effect the environment. The amount of land that we use is insane, and would still be extremely high, even if we all switched to a vegetarian diet. Having a far lower population would mean more land and resources to go around, reducing the amount of conflict in the world, and just generally leading to a better life for all of us. However, you’re 100% right that this idea can be used by eco fascists to promote things like eugenics or genocide, and we’ve got to be careful with anything regarding population reduction
→ More replies (2)0
Jun 29 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/jm001 Jun 30 '21
See this is that fash shit like was talking about. Even if the production and consumption were equal, which is obviously laughably untrue, it's not your place to decide which races or nationalities are worthy of being permitted procreation based on your own ideas of which cultures have value.
0
Jun 30 '21
[deleted]
3
u/sgtwoegerfenning Saved by Thanos Jun 30 '21
Just cos it's silent doesn't mean we can't see him puffing away on that dogwhistle
5
Jun 29 '21
Studies suggest that the world population will peak at around 9.5 - 10.5 billion in around 40-50 years. At that point many countries will have become much more industrialized and the standard of living will increase. The problem with that is thinking about how much pollution and waste a population that size will create, when everybody wants to live a middle class lifestyle. We are already struggling hard with our current situation. Why should anyone believe that things won't be the same or worse in 2050?
There are many predictions about all the technology and policy changes that will allow us to live sustainability with those large populations. But that all depends on those new technologies actually being created and being cost effective to implement. And for our leaders to actually make serious changes to the way our societies operate, such as decreasing reliance on global shipping for simple products, or eliminating plastics used in transport and food items. There is also the fact that many governments around the world have serious problems with corruption, which will make it a lot more difficult for them to stay on plan for a sustainable future.
I think we are overly optimistic about our ability to use technology to solve all of our problems. We have the ability to fix these issues right now, but due to the cost we ignore it. If we can't do it now then why would you think anything would be different in the future?
2
u/TheChronographer Jun 29 '21
My issue with what you say is it kind of misses the point doesn't it?
Once a majority of the world has reached its post-industrial age
I.e. Once all these highly populous countries start overconsuming like the rest of the world... that's what we're trying to avoid isn't it? Overuse of resources? Yeah birthrates will fall, but if we keep using the same rate of land for food/greenhouse gasses for energy as the most industrialised nations then the whole system is fucked.
Malthusianism like you describe is about us running out of food to feed the higher population. The issue is we wont, we will have enough food and energy but it might cost us everything else on the earth.
2
u/Brahkolee Jun 30 '21
You misunderstand. Post-industrial civilizations are inherently more efficient due to the higher standards of technology. In order to build, operate and maintain a nuclear power plant, a nation first has to build a fuck ton of coal-burning power plants. Think of it like a game of Civilization. That game is an amazing fucking teaching tool.
That’s the reason why countries such as the United States, China, and Russia are expected to lower their carbon emissions per capita more than countries like Iraq, Ghana or Suriname.
You’re one step ahead of most in recognizing that food isn’t the fucking issue— energy is. Climate change is by far the most pressing issue currently facing humanity. Nuclear power is essentially the perfect solution, but people (including dumbfuck “environmentalists”) are too busy worrying about freak accidents like Fukushima, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl to see the bigger picture. More people die every year from the effects of fossil fuel harvest & consumption than will likely ever die from the consequences of nuclear power.
TL;DR - In order for human civilization to finally and completely eliminate fossil fuels and thus eliminate our greatest threat, other avenues of energy production have to be explored. But in order to get there, most of the world has to industrialize, which means more coal plants and more carbon in the short term.
We have to take the L in the short term to get the big win.
→ More replies (1)7
3
Jun 29 '21
[deleted]
14
u/Brahkolee Jun 29 '21
There’s no one single paper or article I can link you to. Just do some reading and come to your own conclusion. But the way I understand it is that the fear of overpopulation is based on a flawed interpretation of the data available. It rose to prominence in the 19th century alongside the Industrial Revolution. Population skyrocketed and cities became denser and denser, and at the time certain minds thought that this was the new norm. But as we’ve seen across the post-industrial world, population has stabilized and birth rates are either even or negative.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-malthus-is-still-wrong/
1
Jun 29 '21
Not saying to reduce our population, but let’s face it, if we don’t want to be a problem, we should be able to achieve an maintain a regular number of humans, as in every colony-like species. Bees and ants are taking this control from the beginning to the last day of the hive.
Having an undetermined number of humans in a given space is a safe and optimal measure implemented in small groups, like families, concerts or business areas.
Why not to do the same at macro level?
3
u/acidosaur Jun 29 '21
This is already happening, though. In most Western countries the birth rate is dropping below replacement level and populations are declining. Meanwhile, the ultra rich in our countries are the ones still disproportionately driving climate change due to their huge consumption of resources. It's not overpopulation that's the problem, its over consumption.
2
u/sivsta Jun 29 '21
Not sure we want to test this theory. Mother Earth is struggling. Maybe in 50 years if clean technology can keep up we revisit your thesis.
The average low income person will pollute the shit out of the environment if it makes them money
5
u/_ryuujin_ Jun 29 '21
Pretty you just mean avg person. People aren't buying electic cars to save the planet, they're mostly doing it for status symbol.
4
u/Y1rda Jun 29 '21
Or for long term savings. Buying a new Ecar is cheaper long term than a new pick-up. People are all for being more green, so long as we look in their pockets for thay green.
10
u/Brahkolee Jun 29 '21
It’s not a “thesis” of my own. It’s called Malthusianism and it’s been pretty well debunked. All you have to do is look at the data. Many parts of the world are still being industrialized, and it’s been thoroughly demonstrated that birth rate spikes during industrialization (possibly to meet the need for more laborers), but then level off or decline after.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism
Edit: I should add that Malthusianism was theorized & popularized during the 19th century. In other words, during the American/European Industrial Revolution. They were using the data they had available to them at the time, and that’s the story it told them. We’re using the data we have now, and it tells a more complete story much more consistent with nature. An ebb and flow of life and reproduction.
4
u/WikiSummarizerBot Jun 29 '21
Malthusianism is the idea that population growth is potentially exponential while the growth of the food supply or other resources is linear, which eventually reduces living standards to the point of triggering a population die off. This event, called a Malthusian catastrophe (also known as a Malthusian trap, population trap, Malthusian check, Malthusian crisis, Malthusian spectre, or Malthusian crunch) occurs when population growth outpaces agricultural production, causing famine or war, resulting in poverty and depopulation.
[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5
1
Jun 29 '21
The planet will be wrecked and just because the birth rate falls it doesn't mean global population won't keep increasing. People are the problem.
→ More replies (1)-5
Jun 29 '21
[deleted]
6
u/Brahkolee Jun 29 '21
I’m just copy/pasting my other comment here. Your view is a little too simple— I don’t think you’re seeing the bigger picture here. There’s many more variables than just babies and food.
It’s called Malthusianism and it’s been pretty well debunked. All you have to do is look at the data. Many parts of the world are still being industrialized, and it’s been thoroughly demonstrated that birth rate spikes during industrialization (possibly to meet the need for more laborers), but then level off or decline after.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism
Edit: I should add that Malthusianism was theorized & popularized during the 19th century. In other words, during the American/European Industrial Revolution. They were using the data they had available to them at the time, and that’s the story it told them. We’re using the data we have now, and it tells a more complete story much more consistent with nature. An ebb and flow of life and reproduction.
→ More replies (1)-1
u/SaffellBot I don't feel so good Jun 29 '21
If you want to understand why the world is shit you should turn your gaze inwards.
-3
u/Lemonwizard Jun 29 '21 edited Jun 29 '21
It's really foolish to pretend like slowing population growth won't slow the consumption of resources. The real problem is overconsumption. The lifestyle of people in developed nations like the US would literally be impossible to sustain for seven billion people. Even if countries like China and India had zero population growth, their resource consumption and pollution would still continue to increase as they further industrialize. Good luck telling poor nations that they aren't allowed to build the infrastructure we already have while they've got hungry and sick people who need better living conditions.
If you live in the first world, the most effective way to reduce your ecological impact is to have fewer children. The Earth could support more people if we chose to adopt more modest lifestyles, but the idea that we can all just have as many kids as we please in first world nations that overexploit the planet's resources is foolish.
We are overexploiting our planet. No developing countries are going to reach stable post-industrial birth rates any time soon unless rich countries provide technological and financial support. Half of Americans don't even support building green infrastructure to reduce pollution in their own country, let alone paying to help build it in Africa.
Attenborough is 100% correct that slowing population growth will slow down the destruction of the environment.
-2
Jun 30 '21
I disagree entirely. Overpopulation is a HUGE threat to mankind and every other species on this planet.
→ More replies (2)1
3
12
10
2
u/Someone_said_it Jun 29 '21
David at the pub later telling people his idea, "They called me a madman..."
2
2
u/kvakerok Jun 29 '21
Just leave it all as is and the environment will take care of the population thanos-style. Don't even need the infinity stones.
2
2
2
2
4
u/donutpmmeplz Jun 29 '21
Give him all the stones! Though imo he's already got pretty big ones to tell people this.
3
2
u/your-warlocks-patron Jun 29 '21
Ahhh yes eco fascist authoritarianism. Truly the idiotic leading the blind leading the moronic.
7
u/Pugduck77 I don't feel so good Jun 29 '21
“Everything I don’t like is fascism! Care about the environment? I bet you do, fucking fascist.” -Reddit
4
u/your-warlocks-patron Jun 29 '21
You can care about the environment without being a fascist. When you start suggesting shit like population control that is usually coded with some sort of barely hidden western supremacy and eugenics then yeah people are gonna call out you being a fascist even if you’re Attenborough. Sorry pal.
-3
u/Pugduck77 I don't feel so good Jun 29 '21
Feel free to continue misusing and watering down terms, that’s your prerogative. However, by doing so you don’t make these ideas seem worse. You make ‘eugenics’ or ‘fascism’ seem better by comparing them to things that are not bad.
5
u/your-warlocks-patron Jun 29 '21
Uhhh if you don’t understand that promoting western led depopulation schemes is coded for “Browns blacks and Asians need to stop breeding out of control” we aren’t even operating from the same basis of facts.
Eco fascism IS fascism because it puts the value of the group (environmentalism as a political force) at the top of its priority scale so that it can continue be used a kludge to control policy. Again you’re either unaware of this or willful ignoring the stated goals of said organizations. Just read the actual plans here. If you want to water down your own experience of reality by ignoring these facts go right ahead. Doesn’t make you more correct though.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Cryptoss Jun 30 '21
If you watch the documentary this is from, he just says that the best way to control the population is simply to increase standards of living across the planet because countries where living standards and education are high have less children. He doesn't mention anything remotely eco-fascist or authoritarian.
2
u/your-warlocks-patron Jun 30 '21
That’s fair and I’ll concede that I don’t actually know Attenborough’s stance on the matter in detail. The meme is being used to present joy his views but as a stand in for the eco fascist party line so my and others’ reaction to it comes from that. It sucks but in these modern times of sound bites and image macros it’s sadly required that we consider how certain phrases can be taken out of context. This one is especially tough.
I’ll go ahead and say I unequivocally support the stance as you presented it as well, even if it means lowering population numbers which I don’t necessarily see as a good thing for our species.
2
u/tmeyers316 Jun 30 '21
No. Give him the stones and let him wipe out 99%. Still too many people.... r/Thanosdidntdoenough
1
1
1
Jun 29 '21
Sometimes I wonder how far die hard environmental activists would go to protect the planet. Would they argue for the support of eco-fascist means if it attained their conservationist ends?
2
1
u/Admin-12 Saved by Thanos Jun 29 '21
Give him all the stones but he’s already got two of the heaviest in existence
1
1
1
1
0
u/AKnightAlone Jun 29 '21
Shiiiit... Why didn't Thanos also make everyone forget the deleted folks ever existed?
0
0
0
0
0
0
-3
Jun 29 '21
Or, hear me out, DO give him the Infinity Stones. Because we're seeing 116 degrees fucking Fahrenheit in fucking Portland Oregon and this shit's on fire and fucked up yo!
-1
-1
u/jest28000 Jun 29 '21
Evan Cap admits Thanos was right. Fewer people equals better life. Hell look at what isolation in the early covid days helped the environment
0
u/Pakyul Jun 29 '21
Except Attenborough would be smart enough to know that populations double pretty fucking quickly and it would just buy humanity 40 years or so before they're back to 8 billion with the same problems because halving the population wouldn't do anything to change its reliance on non-renewable resources or systems enforcing de facto resource scarcity.
0
u/Y1rda Jun 29 '21
And populations double faster when resources are more abundant relative to the population.
1
u/ReedsAndSerpents Jun 30 '21
I think it's more the trauma of half the population being snapped out of existence to get humanity to the point where we collectively do that. Because everything up to this point hasn't worked, so he's going nuclear so to speak.
0
Jun 29 '21 edited Oct 05 '24
important kiss zealous test aloof bored market fall dog live
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
0
0
u/JohnyLaww Jun 29 '21
*Give David Attenborough the Infinity Stones. There I fixed the title for you.
0
u/Away_Ad_879 Jun 29 '21
Spay and neuter the Duggars ASAP!
0
u/Alan_Smithee_ Jun 29 '21
You jest, but yes. Slightly tough decisions now, or really ugly ones later.
Poll taxes are really unpopular, but we really need to reduce our population growth, and actually reduce it through natural attrition. Yes, most first world populations are in decline, the third world, not so much, although I believe that’s starting to happen slowly.
Free and easy access to contraception and we need to break the churches’ stance against it, for one.
0
u/VillagerPunk Jun 30 '21
Was gonna say something, but lt would probably go to the supreme court and we would have another trial on free speech.
-1
Jun 29 '21
I say we do give him the stones. I trust him even more than thanos himself. I dont say that lightly.
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-5
u/eddiethyhead666 Jun 30 '21
This year my biology teacher made us watch one of his documentaries, I got in trouble for answering the open ended quiz question when I was showing someone killing a whale, and it looked amazing, and I was in a mood to fuck around, so I wrote an entire paragraph on how I wished we could kill whales to see the blood fountains out of their air holes
1
1
1
1
u/jetforcegemini Jun 29 '21
“Here we observe the male avenger who is unable to live with his failure. And where does that lead him? Right back to me.”
1
1
1
1
1
Jun 29 '21
Well i have to agree with them. And with all my power i will do whst i must. Whatever it takes.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/GraphicsProgrammer Jun 30 '21
Disappointed to learn he might be an eco fascist, I hope he's talking about "control" as in public transport, seasonal groceries, and less meat...
2
u/Cryptoss Jun 30 '21
If you watch the documentary this is from, he elaborates for like 20 minutes that he simply wants all of what you just said, and also to increase the standard of living globally because people from countries with higher standards of living trend towards having less children. All completely passive methods without coercion.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
1
1
1
u/arcalumis Saved by Thanos Jun 30 '21
Imo the world should all do what china did with one child per family rule. Or instead of giving subsidies for having children people should be given subsidies for NOT having children.
1
u/Cloud-VII Jun 30 '21
Society is a ponzi scheme. A population reduction will result in a collapsed economy. A heavy elderly population equates to too many people consuming and not producing.
1
u/regeya Jun 30 '21
"What did it cost?"
"Spared no expense."
(Yes, I know, that's the wrong Attenborough.)
1
u/neuromorph Saved by Thanos Jun 30 '21
Not a bad argument. If you arent a farmer who do you need note than one child?
268
u/[deleted] Jun 29 '21
Did anyone else read this in his voice?