I am ashamed and aghast that humanity is destroying itself by terraforming our only habitat against ourselves, solely to continue to make the rich sociopath club richer.
That said, I’m not entirely sad that Florida happens to be on the front line of that self-destruction, as they’ve been and continue to be a reliable vote for that self-destruction.
I think the newest car is even consider is 2008. Once they started putting telemetry in our cars it was inevitable that they’ll collect every possible datapoint to sell.
I don’t get the need for any of the new features anyways. My 2004 escape does everything I need it to with absolutely no fancy electronics. The cruise control still moves the throttle pedal ffs. The stereo is a $75 dumb radio and everything else is analog.
My next daily driver will probably be whatever I can find that’s older and fun to drive. Some of the new cars look great, especially the EVs, but I’m not willing to let them have that much data about me
Change your cities to be human centric instead of car centric. Build bicycle lanes, Changr building zoning in suburbs so that small shops and restaurants are sprinkled thought. Invest heavily in public transportation
Now we mostly no longer need cars. We’re healthier because we move more, we’re healthier because the air is cleaner, cities are safer and prettier, quieter, everything gets better.
In the last state that tried this, it failed. From my understanding, he must first be found guilty of having committed a crime which disqualifies him. No matter how obviously guilty he is, this seems like a necessary first step, although IANAL.
The amendment was instituted in the wake of the Civil War, and was used several times against members of the Confederacy who never had a trial or conviction.
The idea is that infinite growth is unsustainable. We are feeling the initial effects of it today. Individuals who are scared of it today are simply not having children. So they are starting with themselves.
As with other grand scale problems facing humanity; I think we will simply chug along until it blows up in our faces.
We’re not even close to the point at which population growth becomes unsustainable. We’re in the position we’re in because we failed to invest in infrastructure.
And which social or ethnic group in particular do you suggest should be the ones to be sacrificed exactly? The answer to eugenics is not more eugenics.
You clearly stated it - the ones you think need encouragement to use contraception, and lets not pretend you mean rich people or even just the "middle class" in wealthy countries who are having fewer and fewer children to the point where they fear population collapse.
It's also interesting that you've responded here, but not to the comment with the links proving you wrong.
Why not rich people? I meant all people. If rich people don’t understand condoms, they should. And use them. I have no idea why you think I would say otherwise.
No, you didn't, no one who brings up overpopulation ever does, it's a dog whistle (so even if we pretend you didn't mean to, you're advocating the same bullshit as those who do mean it).
But hey, double down away if it makes you happy, just know that your choice to die on this hill instead of putting your hand up to admit you had a shitty uninformed take doesn't do you any favours.. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
He’s right, and saying there’s too many people on the planet to live sustainably isn’t racist or a dog whistle. Suggesting that there’s too many of some specific race or class of people would absolutely be racist (or classist or some other -ist), but nobody should get a pass. Everyone helped get us into this situation and everyone should be working to solve it. While it is true that using our current factory farming methods we can produce enough food today that’s absolutely not going to be the case forever and it’s also forcing our hand with regards to using incredibly environmentally damaging and unsustainable farming methods. We have to use factory farms because we literally couldn’t produce enough food otherwise. Everybody should be encouraged to limit the number of children they have. And before you start, I practice what I preach, I have no children.
Prime example one of the problem is Muskrat and his what, nearly a dozen kids? That should be completely unacceptable. There’s absolutely no reason why anyone should have more than 2 kids at worst, ideally 1 or no kids. At least until global population levels have dropped to a point where we can meet our food needs using smaller farms that don’t require truck loads of fertilizer and antibiotics and pack so many animals into such a tiny space that they can barely move.
You’re talking about this as if there’s no overriding socioeconomic context that carries forth implications. Any time birthing restrictions have been tried, rich and privileged groups always get exemptions.
People should be encouraged to take advantage of contraception because they should have the right to plan their families- not because we’ve decided we want to look down on people who breed.
You put a lot of words into someone’s mouth and then had an argument with yourself. That was funny but I doubt that was your intent. Maybe try not constructing so many straw men?
How do you encourage marginalized people who have been historically discouraged from breeding due to eugenics reasons to voluntarily stop breeding because the people in power just lowkey want them to?
The world has almost 8 billion people. Maybe we could do with a few less.
Which is vague. And vagueness is often used to give plausible deniability when eugenicists are on the march. So cool on you for giving such grace to an internet stranger, but when I read things like this, it always includes what is between the lines.
For reasons I don’t understand, people seem to be incapable of separating any discussion of overpopulation from racism and eugenics. I think it’s at the point where it’s disingenuous, willful, or at the very least a massive blind spot in people talking about the problem. You should understand that bad people can embrace overpopulation with bad conclusions, and that should not taint reality. Hitler was an animal lover - does that mean it’s wrong to love animals? That’s the level of flawed argument we’re dealing with here.
For reasons I don’t understand, people seem to be incapable of separating any discussion of overpopulation from racism and eugenics.
It's because they're fucking inseparable, you not understanding why or how (never mind being as wilfully ignorant as you are since you clearly didn't read word in the links I posted) doesn't change that
Let me copy pasta myself for the sake of anyone who actually wants to learn more before I leave this dumpster fire:
In reality overpopulation is a myth and rather population decline is a real concern in many countries.
Now of course we can talk about who this concerns and why (under the current system? It concerns those who need workers to exploit, white supremacists looking to "overturn" the "great replacement", in some cases both, and it also concerns the aging population that will end up with very little support, something which wouldn't be as big an issue if we had stronger communities, but alienation and all that jazz, as well as the fewer workers who will remain to keep the economy going for minimal pay as they get bossed around by AI, because capitalism), and also about who pushes the overpopulationmyth and why, but the bottom line is - the population isn't and never has been the problem (we already produce enough food to sustain everyone alive today and then some), it is capitalism and it's dependence on creating infinite growth in a finite world, at the expense of everyone and everything on the planet (themselves included except for the handful who will end up in orbit or whatever. And then die) that is the problem, and what we need to get rid of if we want to stop this dystopian spiral.
Well that was a totally reasonable response from someone who is totally capable of considering the merits of an argument without relying on bad articles trying to drum up weak support for the author’s preordained conclusion with circular reasoning. Nothing to see here folks. This guy has it all figured out and we should totally worship his correctness without debate.
IMO the only myth is the belief that it’s a myth. The evidence is overwhelming.
If you look at all the crimes the 18 defendants are charged with, I’d say that 150 is actually pretty freaking economical! If math is right, that’s like 4.92 indictments per witness.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.