There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

theywilleatthestars ,

The thing is that that’s an extremely fucked up and evil thing to do

actionjbone ,

I’ll say. Even Thanos only wanted to kill HALF the population.

Lost_My_Mind OP ,

Well, I was going to say just kill ALL the humans, but then I thought people would get mad that I’m killing all the humans. So I said 2/3rds.

scottmeme ,

Need to up those numbers to 111% of the Humans

samus12345 ,
@samus12345@lemmy.world avatar

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a0/c1/67/a0c167e62232d1955a3a0daf2e159683.png

problematicPanther ,
@problematicPanther@lemmy.world avatar

Killing all humans would solve the problem though.

samus12345 ,
@samus12345@lemmy.world avatar

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-85b7c27a1288acdfabee396c0d5752ea-pjlq

MrJameGumb ,
@MrJameGumb@lemmy.world avatar

I know the name of the community is “no stupid questions”, but you managed to power through somehow anyway

An excellent trolling if ever I’ve seen one

🧌

EleventhHour ,
@EleventhHour@lemmy.world avatar

i have observed that many people interpret the community title as a dare

fine_sandy_bottom ,

If I’m really honest I often feel that way about the questions here. I suspect that most of us are here just to gawk at how truly stupid some of us are.

Bubs12 ,

Nice try, ChatGPT

InternetCitizen2 ,

It is man made and the answer is to make better use of our resources to limit pollution where a green alternative is not possible.

zbyte64 ,

You could accomplish the same CO2 reduction with fewer deaths if you start with the richest and work your way down.

MacroCyclo ,

Good point, you might only need to knock off a very small fraction.

KISSmyOS ,

But then everybody will starve cause there’s no one left to create jobs.

palebluethought ,

I almost hesitate to bring up the other problems with your plan since, obviously the total monstrosity of it. But that’s anyway pretty well covered so I’ll just throw in that blowing enough nukes to kill that many people would create considerably worse environmental disaster

KittenBiscuits ,

But if enough were detonated, would it create a nuclear winter thereby offsetting the warming trend?

https://lemm.ee/api/v3/image_proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgflip.com%2F1j7rqt.jpg

prole ,

The Mojave wasteland makes me wish for one…

Fah_Q ,

It would be more fair to kill off the larger population how many Chinese are there again? Probably smarter to kill off the population who are producing the most offspring per family though.

BlameThePeacock ,

If the goal is reducing emissions, taking out the highest carbon emitters per capita would make the most sense. That’s the developed countries, with the US leading the pack.

Fah_Q ,

We’re already killing off the all the rich ultra polluters in all countries I thought. Lol also just like COVID stats USA leads the pack in “reported” pollution. Wether that be do to lack of funds or good old fashioned propaganda for our “less developed” earth friends.

sxan ,
@sxan@midwest.social avatar

Good answer! Nuking ruins valuable resources, like plants that help reduce greenhouse gases, and animals that help ecosystems thrive.

What we need is some sort of pandemic, that targets the especially stupid (refusing to take protectionary precautions, idiotically increasing their risk of exposure). It’s hard to go without also catching people with comorbidities in the net, but acceptable losses, I guess.

If only there was such a disease…

CarbonatedPastaSauce ,

If you find a GoFundMe for this, let me know.

PhlubbaDubba ,

“We have Thanos at home”

The Thanos at Home:

Postmortal_Pop ,

Thanos was fucking stupid and no amount of “cold logic” bullshit will justify the fact that unlimited cosmic power could have just doubled the universe.

Rhaedas ,

Neither addresses the problem, they just both push it into the future. Half the population/double the resources isn't even a reasonable amount to give much more time. It's better for drama though, because disappearing 99% or more of the universe would have really set back the Avengers, if any of them made the cut at all.

Postmortal_Pop ,

That’s exactly my point, he could have made infinite resources, made energy infinite, made resources unnecessary, put the entirety of the universe in Minecraft creative mode, or just make everything into hyper realistic cake. Instead he picks the outcome that hurts the most people.

Rhaedas ,

He picks the outcome that's the simplest to explain. But you could explain it as a sadistic goal, because look at what second Thanos wanted to do upon learning the universe didn't appreciate him the first time. Kill it all.

Postmortal_Pop ,

Really it can only be considered sadism, he absolutely had the power to unmake half of the population from the start of time, they never existed, no one died, no one mourned. Instead picked the option that would hurt the most people at random with absolutely no positive outcomes for anyone left.

prole ,

Perhaps you forget how the infinity stones were purported to work…

PhlubbaDubba ,

Or just the fact that achieving space farring tech in effect makes you a post scarcity civilization.

Thanos wasn’t called Mad because his people deemed his ideas too radical, it was because even the premise of his plan was based on him being as dumb as a sack of rocks.

MNByChoice ,

At least in the comics he wanted to impress the personification of Death.

Postmortal_Pop ,

As dumb as “to bone death herself” is as an excuse, it’s so much better than we got in the movie.

lemmefixdat4u ,

Logically, killing humans would be way down on the list of potential Global Warming solutions. We would have to exhaust all other methods first. Just banning private vehicles would save a few billion from extermination. Green energy tech and Nuclear power would save more. Vegetarian diets even more. Reducing organic waste, involuntary birth control, carbon sequestration - it’s a long list of better incremental solutions. They may be more costly than extermination, but they’re infinitely more ethical. It’s only logical if that’s the sole solution that ensures some of the population survives. We’re a long way from that condition.

A_A ,
@A_A@lemmy.world avatar

“… involuntary birth control …”
We are the only two contributors here rising this topic. How do you see it ?
Please also read my root comment.

lemmefixdat4u ,

I see it as one possibility of many. Measures currently employed are limited because most countries are democratic, where politicians must appease the people to stay in office. China could implement one-child because they are a de-facto dictatorship.

A_A ,
@A_A@lemmy.world avatar

Yes, thanks. Let’s hope many countries evolve (or citizens mature) so they can apply necessary policies without degrading into dictatorships.

spittingimage ,
@spittingimage@lemmy.world avatar

Well I mean… initially you’d have a whole bunch of dead humans emitting carbon dioxide and methane as they decompose.

A_A , (edited )
@A_A@lemmy.world avatar

The one child policy as was imposed in China is the most drastic that is ethically tolerable.
And, lack of resources will soon enough convince people to make less children.
You don’t have to kill yourself today because you may die in 50 years - - this is blindingly obvious.

XeroxCool ,

I don’t think limited resources ever results in reduced births. 100 years ago, US parents were making lots of kids and not naming them for the first year because infant mortality was so high. Education is what slows the birthrate.

A_A ,
@A_A@lemmy.world avatar

You are right that it happened in the past and it still happens in many countries today : without education we are going toward disaster.
But i was trying to have a somewhat optimistic view and if you consider China’s one child policy it necessitated more education but this policy was sparked by a lack of resources.
We could find more examples where education combine with lack of resources would go the way i was saying.

XeroxCool ,

I suppose with global education on the rise, prior examples won’t always be accurate. I wasn’t considering China’s example to be part of an increased education amount because it didn’t necessarily teach the average citizen why they should limit kids, but a governing decision that results in the same outcome could still count.

iiGxC ,

If people who hunt with population control as the excuse were logically consistent then they’d say yes

etchinghillside ,

Calm down Thanos.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •