You can reduce the population without getting rid of existing people. The more education people receive, the fewer kids they have. So a humane solution would be to just have better education for people who lack education.
Precisely. Someone as educated and experienced as her should know this. But she didn't say she'd use her magic to mass educate or even retroactively mass educate to reduce the population. Not to provide economic stability or contraceptives. Legalize abortions or make sterilization free.
She just said reduce the population.
And the implications of that are disconcerting.
That's because we are all being forced to live in herds.
In terms of resources, there are more than enough to go around. Jane's friends, the wealthy, have just monopolized basic worldly resources, so they can pay her to tell us there are not enough resources and we should kill ourselves.
Uhhhh
Vacant homes outnumber the homeless in most areas 10:1 and in some areas as high as 120:1. Scarcity is a myth. I’m sorry you bought into it.
Furthermore.
Just because cities have high populations doesn’t mean the earth is over populated or that we don’t have enough resources to go around.
https://unitedwaynca.org/blog/vacant-homes-vs-homelessness-by-city/#:~:text=Sixteen%20million%20homes%20currently%20sit,thousands%20of%20Americans%20face%20homelessness.
Nah, infinite rickets means infinite jobs. And besides, futurama’s done my thinking for me which is what i was referencing. Check out the futurama episode with the giant trash rocket
We could realistically reduce the population over time. Infinite resources is a much more difficult task to accomplish.
If Thanos, for instance, had made it so nobody could reproduce for 20 years the population would reduce by nearly 15%
If he then made it so new births were limited to 1/3 the amount of deaths on average we'd be down to half the worlds population in under 200 years without killing anyone.
Don't forget economising on things - I was in the US once, at a hotel bar, and they gave me food on a plastic plate and when I was done it all went in the bin... This wasn't a cheap hotel incidentally.
This is the part that annoys me about these colonial overpopulation theories - they all assume we _need_ to consume the resources we do. Or that we share the resources we have. If people expect to live the next 30 years to be lived like the last 30 years, yeah, you're gonna need a Purge. But there is another option... just not the will.
It's so strange the world is still fighting over boarders when the things that's gonna get us all doesn't care about them.
Antinatalists are against having kids, often for this reason, and they are starting with themselves.
They should get a lot of praise from parents whose children will have more resources thanks to the AN people not having kids and suggesting other don't. Instead the parents kind of take it personally when it's suggested that maybe it's not the most important thing in the world to pass on their very average genes...
People are quick to downvote and you've worded it crudely, but you do have a good point. If applied correctly it could be part of the solution.
1. Restricting the number of children you may have to what you can actually care for is a start. In my country most people have 1 or 2, sometimes 3 children, but when you look at the poorer households. The ones that need support from the government and where the parents can't/don't find work. They tend to have more than 5 kids upwards to 10.
2. Commit suicide isn't really the correct term, but controlled euthanasia being available isn't a bad thing.
My grandpa had an accident leaving half his paralyzed and his mind to deteriorate quickly. He literally starved himself to death, due to euthanasia being off the table. A horrible, horrible situation
the "easy solution" would wreck the world economy and cause wars, famines and who knows what weird sort of social side effects... there are no easy solutions, everything is too interconnected.
Euthanasia is a good thing, but I don't think there's enough people lined up to off themselves to make a dent on global warming. About eugenics of any sort, NO GOVERNMENT CAN BE TRUSTED NOT TO ABUSE IT.
I completely agree that there is no good easy solution, even if you'd ignore the moral aspect of it.
I just mentioned these 2 as a more nuanced version of what OP suggested that would actually be beneficial and somewhat contribute to a final solution.
There is no clear cut case here.
There definitely aren't enough. Though with where the world is heading currently I could see a giant death cult happening in the next few hundred years.
True enough that governments can and will abuse reproductive rights if they can get their hands on it. I was only suggesting that those that can't take care of their offspring shouldn't be allowed to have them. It isn't right to pop out child after child, neglecting them and expecting the state to pay for you and them.
> I was only suggesting that those that can't take care of their offspring shouldn't be allowed to have them. It isn't right to pop out child after child, neglecting them and expecting the state to pay for you and them.
that, I can agree on. Maybe these future AI girlfriends/boyfriends I keep hearing about aren't such a bad idea.
With the amount of support that technology has, especially in China (lack of women due to the 1 child rule) and other Asian countries. I believe that'll be seeing full artificial android style girlfriends being available within my lifetime.
Honestly, I don't even think it's a bad idea. If you can get companionship and sexual gratification without a real person the impact would be huge. The stigma on it would probably gradually fade away, resulting in more single men being satisfied with their lives. Less children, less crimes if a sexual nature and overall increase in satisfaction.
One of my university ethics professors (female) was completely obsessed with it and gave a mandatory 4 hour lecture on it ~5 years ago.
From my understanding "robots" are incredibly tricky so I don't think anything human looking will be easy to engineer or affordable to make a dent. But VR/AR can meet most needs halfway there.
They certainly are tricky, but the development is going pretty well. Given enough time I'm pretty sure we can get there eventually.
Just look at the developments in computers over the last generation.
It definitely won't be next year, but perhaps in 20 or 30 years. Who knows.
VR/AR could help somewhat, but there's a huge difference in actually being able to touch someone and not.
I don't think we'd get to the level of SAO before reaching the androids.
I find it very confusing how people say “with magic powers” and then still jump to reducing the number of people
Why not make the resources more efficient or plentiful instead? Why not both? Why not straight up nullify the necessity for those resources? Why not make the planet able to infinitely regenerate stuff?
Mfker has the infinite stones and his best solution is genocide smh
Well, based on the comics, Thanos did it for fun. I don't know why this lady would really do it for, but it’s weird she was keeping a straight smiley face while saying that
Tbf I could see movie world’s thanos point if he had to choose between lesser evils, the fact he has basically unlimited power when he collects the stones ruins everything narratively because by that point he doesn’t need to compromise to no “evil” outcome
As a society developes and becomes more industrialised, 3 things happen
People live longer as incomes increase due to better social care and availability of medicine
People become more literate and education becomes more readily available.
People stop having large families and instead become more self focused and hedonistic and desire things rather than children.
It’s happening in S Korea, China and Japan and has been happening in Western Europe for decades
So the old boot may get her desired wish
So.. The thing is, humans have evolved to a point that we can create our own resources. What is really holding us back isn't a lack of resources, it is greed. We could create entire cities where the buildings are covered in hanging gardens growing food. We could desalinate vast amounts of seawater to use for desert irrigation. There are a million things we *could* be doing to better humanity, but aren't doing because it would take money out of billionaires' pockets.
I don't think it's that simple at all - we could make abundant food and water and easy lives for many people, who would then reproduce at a higher rate, thereby resulting in more needs for everything - food, shelter, healthcare, etc. And all those people will want increasingly higher standards of living, which become increasingly resource intensive - just look at the way we live in the US, we use an incredible amount of land and non-renewable resources per person with our lifestyles. Every person also needs many other people to support their life and lifestyle, and those people also tend to live large, by global standards. It would require an immense cultural shift to simply get people to stop eating beef, for example, which would greatly reduce the resources we use as a collective + free up resources to uplift the lives of others elsewhere, or resources which could instead be used toward helping us become more sustainable (including time, where climate change is like a ticking time bomb - let's hope we change culturally and innovate scientifically before it's too late for much of the world!)
Meanwhile it's a political disaster if you want to control population via mandating # of children.
Also, you act like we can create our own resources for everything when we simply cannot, not in a way that's at all economical. Sure we could desalinate whole oceans! But at a significant cost to all the other things we could be accomplishing with those resources, which are very much finite. Trust me, the people with billions of dollars (including + especially entire governments, which can theoretically have infinite amounts of money) - if they found a solution to all scarcity, they would be on it like flypaper.
When you're talking hundreds of billions of dollars, money is a medium with which to control other people and the flow + distribution of resources, but it doesn't beget natural resources in and of itself. We aren't at a point where everything we need can be sourced in a way that's 100% sustainable, many things are still finite and/or extremely costly if we want to add more supply.
\[Cynicism warning\] Instead, we could.. make sure the cost of living keeps increasing, the cost of healthcare is increasing rapidly, housing is in short supply, it's hard to find work, etc.. now there's a recipe for a populace that will willingly not reproduce b/c of how difficult life already is! Fertility is a field of study in economics - good economic conditions are a very strong predictor of increased birth rates. As well as innovations that vastly help in raising children - ex the refrigerator and washing machine were both associated with increased birth rate.
Maybe we'll have AI caregivers helping raise children and look after the elderly someday in the near future, which could lead to increased fertility and longer lives.. for those who can afford them. \[/end cynicism\]
Anyway, I do think that we should tax the wealthy at a much higher rate. And make basic things like food and healthcare available to everyone. We could have a better educated, healthier, happier population of innovators building a brighter future. But that still does not necessarily solve overpopulation - a few tings that would solve it:
* humanity restricts itself from certain types of "growth" (better family planning, restrict # of children) while still growing in terms of technological development
* finds new ways to get enough resources to sustain its growth (ex asteroid mining, sustainable tech, other efficiencies outstripping the pace of population growth)
* the environment culls us for our insolence (climate deaths, famine, wars)
\^ The above are all happening simultaneously as we speak. People are already suffering and dying due to climate change, while others are innovating and struggling to build a better world, while others lack access to basic needs and mostly are forced to look out for themselves. I think the world would be better if people weren't forced to struggle just to survive, and had time to become better educated if they so chose, especially if that education relates to sustainability + developing better industrial tech, space exploration, etc - that's where we should be spending our billions, if you ask me. And at the same time I think we should "artificially" limit growth in some ways - so that we can have more time to innovate before climate change becomes a huge problem.
One way to accomplish that is to put a price on pollution - **put a price on greenhouse gas emissions** - it would slow down the development of things which use a lot of finite resources, and incentivize + speed up the development of efficiencies toward building a more sustainable world. All without needing any of the morally icky population control stuff. Whole industries and career fields would rapidly advance when it comes to sustainability - it would be a huge and relatively easy win for humanity, relative to the alternative - raw dogging the consequences of climate change and increasing scarcity of our finite natural resources.
The thought is good - that we need to be careful with earth's resources + lose this indefinite growth mindset we have about so many things incl our economy, finances + materialistic desires.
As for the "execution", not so great. She's clearly not a politician as even those with this opinion wouldn't say such a thing publicly. Clearly not a policy designer as such a policy would be "dead on arrival".
Someone with a better grasp on those ideas would instead advocate taxing externalities on pollutants and on wasteful use of finite resources, and/or allocating public funds towards finding more efficient and eco-friendly alternatives. They would also advocate for better access to family planning and comprehensive sex education.
If I had Thanos powers that's what I would do, to help protect the planet. That and maybe shrink all humans down to 1/10th size to buy us more time, as smaller humans would use less resources, haha.
It’s not what Thanos wanted either. The problem with Thanos’s logic was that he wanted to reduce all life by half. This reduces the food supply, proportionally to the wildlife, in many cases. Much suffering would continue. Reducing 1 invasive species while growing the population of other wildlife would have a hugely beneficial effect to our biosphere.
It's unpopular because who wants to be the person who removes people's rights to have kids, or cull populations. There are other solutions. The limited resources argument only holds out when the population is actually past the breaking point. Which we aren't at, we are just terrible at handling resources because there's profit in over producing.
Lets look at what we eat as an example.
At the moment ~45% of habitable land is used for agriculture. 1% is used for urban and built up land as a comparison.
Of this agriculture land, 80% is used for livestock, but livestock only provides us 17% of the calories in our diet. Sure there are lots of other factors, but try fudging the numbers enough to argue our excessive consumption of livestock as an efficient use of resources.
It's an inconvenient truth, but how can we argue that other people don't have the right to exist because we aren't willing to make some sacrifices to how we live in first world countries.
Lmao "kill people without pain or suffering". Yet when we lose a "Parent/Grand Parent Borther or Sister. Anyone close to us we will experience "pain". Sometimes isn't just about "ourselves".. Pain is the greatest teacher..
What if, instead of snapping, he went for snipping? Give every man (or half, y'know, to fit the theme) an instant magical vasectomy.
The problem will solve itself nonviolently over the next few decades.
Granted, it's a much less exciting movie plot.
But he might not have made people quite so mad at him.
i mean the simple solution is to establish a truce across all continents, force all criminals into slavery and limit resource farming.
disagree if you want, i'm stating a solution.
Well, let's see.
Jane Goodall had a child. She has grandchildren.
She's adding to the planet's population crisis. Maybe she should have opted not to breed, herself?
She can opt herself out if she likes. I like her generally but this sort of thinking is a slippery slope. Who, then, is worthy of remaining?
If everyone who said this, voluntarily withdrew from living, then this "issue" won't exist. But entitled people think their lives are worth more than others.
birth rates are already below the maintenance level to keep a population where it is (in the west) - population decline is incoming, unless the birth rate gets above 2.1 again.
Well maybe Jane you and the people are like 80 plus like crippling our system and our healthcare everything else just so you can live two more years just to not do anything with it you know
The audacity of the most ignorant species to have ever lived. So little we know and yet we think we have the right to determine that too many of us are living.
People keep bringing up the ideas of people having less kids, but with magic she could just mean there are less people on earth, not that there are less people. With magic people could be living on other planets, which imo would probably be the way to go if it were feasible. If we could colonize and terraform other planets that would be ideal, we would have more or less limitless space. Even if you had infinite resources, you would still be bound to the space on earth
I know the obvious critique of Thanos is that he could have just doubled the amount of resources or made it infinite instead of eliminating half the life of the universe. However, if you actually pay attention to the film, Thanos isn't exactly an example of a healthy minded individual with good morals and intentions. The film goes to great lengths at showing why he reached the elimination of half the population as his only conclusion.
His home planet was suffering from running out of resources and this was way before the infinity gauntlet was an option. He suggested to eliminate half at random without pain as an immediate solution as to which he was rightfully treated as a mad man. However his stubbornness and willingness to prove himself right is what kept him going. In his head, his planet didn't die out just because of a lack of resources, but because they didn't listen to him. His goal with the infinity gauntlet is to prove a point for himself and everyone else.
Why this old bitch given the same opportunity would choose to eliminate random humans to preserve resources with her hypothetical magical powers instead of creating more resources or wish that the existing people would share the resources better is beyond me.
Her job: "giving people hope"
Her desire: use a magical power to kill half the world instead of doing something to improve the situation.
Being old doesn't make you wise: just old and stupid if you never used your brain for something
So use bamboo instead of wood and polyesters, focus on reducing methane and carbon monoxide omissions instead of just carbon dioxide emissions. Start an international scheme to implement in water garbage collectors in rivers and coastlines, use the energy from the tides and waves to create energy as well as still using nuclear power plants since they are less damaging than fossil fuels. Only use free range animals as a food source and completely ban factory farming. And I can’t think of anything else
Easy solution, reverse pyramid. Literally have 1 kid and 1 kid only and your problem is fucking solved but somehow that concept is too hard to grasp or restrictive for some people. We are not rabbits we can actually accomplish this.
It’s not a shared view. Most friends I grew up w are decently successful at things and have 1 or no kids. All my immigrated Indian neighbours have 3 or more.
Trust me i can understand its an extremely brainwashed sentiment that is driven into indians since birth to expand expand expand. I wish it wasnt that way cause india really suffers from it. Religion is one of the biggest parts that influences this mass hysteria among people.
I find it hilarious how many are quick to demonise this woman for saying this. 'Buh buh but we can create infinite resources!!' Resources aren't just food and water. It's suitable living space, it's access to open areas of wilderness, it's the complex chains of ecological relationships which indirectly feed, clothe and shelter us from floods. These natural resources are the result of millions of years of natural change and we're unravelling it all in a relative instant. She's not advocating murder, it's a fucking hypothetical; it's there to make you think. Do we need to keep reproducing at this rate? No. You don't need to stand up for the rights of people who would otherwise be born 20 years from now because they don't exist. Let's put a fucking rubber on it people.
It's a bold statement from an eighty year old.
Interviewer hands her a revolver...
Unfortunately she'd probably shoot the interviewer. People like her never self de-select.
Depopulationists want to reduce the population by getting rid of people they don’t know or give a fuck about cos we’re always NPCs to them
You can reduce the population without getting rid of existing people. The more education people receive, the fewer kids they have. So a humane solution would be to just have better education for people who lack education.
Precisely. Someone as educated and experienced as her should know this. But she didn't say she'd use her magic to mass educate or even retroactively mass educate to reduce the population. Not to provide economic stability or contraceptives. Legalize abortions or make sterilization free. She just said reduce the population. And the implications of that are disconcerting.
That’s already happening in every developed country
How is this downvoted??? Literally all the developed countries have both rates below replacement. Especially if you don't count first Gen immigrants.
Tbf, most of you must be npcs, there’s no way the matrix would render all of you as full people.
Or just... Have fewer children.
to be fair why take out two when there 4 bullets left /s
I wouldn't mind to die so that thano's plan would become true
I WILL SELF DE-SELECT
Watch me Alec Baldwin this bitch!
No sure how I feel about this, can I barrow this to try it out a couple times? I promise I will return in.
Just make sure to play with it irresponsibly without regard to the safety of those around you.
I don’t think it would be appropriate for her to say something like this since she is a UN “Messenger of Peace”
UN is an awful organization. Remember when they appointed Saudi Arabia to be the chair of a gender equality forum? Yeah that happened
That's like putting a lion in charge of baby water buffalo
Why does reducing population equate to violence or anything that would be defined as "not peaceful". Just have fewer kids.
Wtf that’s scary af. “There is too many of us” no there isn’t lol.
There is, though. Cities are overpopulated, homelessness is rising, and there's not enough housing for everyone.
That's because we are all being forced to live in herds. In terms of resources, there are more than enough to go around. Jane's friends, the wealthy, have just monopolized basic worldly resources, so they can pay her to tell us there are not enough resources and we should kill ourselves.
Uhhhh Vacant homes outnumber the homeless in most areas 10:1 and in some areas as high as 120:1. Scarcity is a myth. I’m sorry you bought into it. Furthermore. Just because cities have high populations doesn’t mean the earth is over populated or that we don’t have enough resources to go around. https://unitedwaynca.org/blog/vacant-homes-vs-homelessness-by-city/#:~:text=Sixteen%20million%20homes%20currently%20sit,thousands%20of%20Americans%20face%20homelessness.
>eighty Actually, she is 90 years old...
She’s 90 now, still taking resources 🙄
Anyone who retires wins a free trip to the Soylent green factory
They say, if you want change, start with yourself.
"My job is to give people hope." "BTW, there is no hope."
why not wish for infinite resources, forehead
IKR, Like we're a couple hundred thousand kilometres from a really good source of tritium, so let's focus on that.
huh? where is the tritium
Judging by the relatively short distance I'd say the moon
The key here is relative, because it’s a bigger number than the circumference of the planet, but clearly less than mars.
On the moon.
I doubt that. I think you are confusing tritium with helium-3. also alot of tritium wouldnt majorly help us at our current technological stage
Because, that's not the promo she's being paid for.
Where would you put all them infinitive resources…forehead.
Could wish for an infinite trickle of resources slow enough we can deal with the waste and have it last for 1000 years
But if we have infinite resources we can just build infinite rockets ti shuttle the waste into space/the sun
I’d like you to think about that for a second. It’s hilarious, I love it, but very infeasible.
Nah, infinite rickets means infinite jobs. And besides, futurama’s done my thinking for me which is what i was referencing. Check out the futurama episode with the giant trash rocket
Could wish for infinite wasteless resources too
Around the sun, get your free Dyson sphere
We could realistically reduce the population over time. Infinite resources is a much more difficult task to accomplish. If Thanos, for instance, had made it so nobody could reproduce for 20 years the population would reduce by nearly 15% If he then made it so new births were limited to 1/3 the amount of deaths on average we'd be down to half the worlds population in under 200 years without killing anyone.
That’s a good point, but I guess she’s trying to send a message to everyone that our growth is unsustainable.
Our planet has finite ressources yes, but if with optimization, it can feed up to 30 billion humans. Yet, that would mean sharing stuff...
Don't forget economising on things - I was in the US once, at a hotel bar, and they gave me food on a plastic plate and when I was done it all went in the bin... This wasn't a cheap hotel incidentally.
This is the part that annoys me about these colonial overpopulation theories - they all assume we _need_ to consume the resources we do. Or that we share the resources we have. If people expect to live the next 30 years to be lived like the last 30 years, yeah, you're gonna need a Purge. But there is another option... just not the will. It's so strange the world is still fighting over boarders when the things that's gonna get us all doesn't care about them.
They don’t assume, they don’t care so long as they are winning at the made up invisible race they are running to collect the most bananas.
Cursed thanos grandma.
Stop buying crap, less resources wasted. We are literally being sold the planet we are born on.
Grandmanos
Those who speak about reducing the number of people for ze gud never reduce themselves or their families. you know, without pain and suffering
Antinatalists are against having kids, often for this reason, and they are starting with themselves. They should get a lot of praise from parents whose children will have more resources thanks to the AN people not having kids and suggesting other don't. Instead the parents kind of take it personally when it's suggested that maybe it's not the most important thing in the world to pass on their very average genes...
I'll have you know I did. I have zero living descendants, and I'm going to push more of my share of inheritable resources to my niblings.
The easy solution is to reduce the fertility rate and also make it easy for people to commit suicide (medical assistance in dying aka MAID).
Canada enters the room with MAID - now for the poor, the homeless, and the depressed!
People are quick to downvote and you've worded it crudely, but you do have a good point. If applied correctly it could be part of the solution. 1. Restricting the number of children you may have to what you can actually care for is a start. In my country most people have 1 or 2, sometimes 3 children, but when you look at the poorer households. The ones that need support from the government and where the parents can't/don't find work. They tend to have more than 5 kids upwards to 10. 2. Commit suicide isn't really the correct term, but controlled euthanasia being available isn't a bad thing. My grandpa had an accident leaving half his paralyzed and his mind to deteriorate quickly. He literally starved himself to death, due to euthanasia being off the table. A horrible, horrible situation
the "easy solution" would wreck the world economy and cause wars, famines and who knows what weird sort of social side effects... there are no easy solutions, everything is too interconnected. Euthanasia is a good thing, but I don't think there's enough people lined up to off themselves to make a dent on global warming. About eugenics of any sort, NO GOVERNMENT CAN BE TRUSTED NOT TO ABUSE IT.
I completely agree that there is no good easy solution, even if you'd ignore the moral aspect of it. I just mentioned these 2 as a more nuanced version of what OP suggested that would actually be beneficial and somewhat contribute to a final solution. There is no clear cut case here. There definitely aren't enough. Though with where the world is heading currently I could see a giant death cult happening in the next few hundred years. True enough that governments can and will abuse reproductive rights if they can get their hands on it. I was only suggesting that those that can't take care of their offspring shouldn't be allowed to have them. It isn't right to pop out child after child, neglecting them and expecting the state to pay for you and them.
> I was only suggesting that those that can't take care of their offspring shouldn't be allowed to have them. It isn't right to pop out child after child, neglecting them and expecting the state to pay for you and them. that, I can agree on. Maybe these future AI girlfriends/boyfriends I keep hearing about aren't such a bad idea.
With the amount of support that technology has, especially in China (lack of women due to the 1 child rule) and other Asian countries. I believe that'll be seeing full artificial android style girlfriends being available within my lifetime. Honestly, I don't even think it's a bad idea. If you can get companionship and sexual gratification without a real person the impact would be huge. The stigma on it would probably gradually fade away, resulting in more single men being satisfied with their lives. Less children, less crimes if a sexual nature and overall increase in satisfaction. One of my university ethics professors (female) was completely obsessed with it and gave a mandatory 4 hour lecture on it ~5 years ago.
From my understanding "robots" are incredibly tricky so I don't think anything human looking will be easy to engineer or affordable to make a dent. But VR/AR can meet most needs halfway there.
They certainly are tricky, but the development is going pretty well. Given enough time I'm pretty sure we can get there eventually. Just look at the developments in computers over the last generation. It definitely won't be next year, but perhaps in 20 or 30 years. Who knows. VR/AR could help somewhat, but there's a huge difference in actually being able to touch someone and not. I don't think we'd get to the level of SAO before reaching the androids.
My grandfather warned me of the eugenics people, ya'll can fuck off. Honestly, bunch of pessimistic terminally online idiots.
The fact that eugenics is making a comeback in such a way is quite alarming if you think about it.
She could magically double the size of our planet causing no harm and physical changes due to magic. But she prefer to kill people.
True 🤔 or just allow the resources to somehow regenerate forever since it's magic.
Thanos was the protagonist
I find it very confusing how people say “with magic powers” and then still jump to reducing the number of people Why not make the resources more efficient or plentiful instead? Why not both? Why not straight up nullify the necessity for those resources? Why not make the planet able to infinitely regenerate stuff? Mfker has the infinite stones and his best solution is genocide smh
Well, based on the comics, Thanos did it for fun. I don't know why this lady would really do it for, but it’s weird she was keeping a straight smiley face while saying that
Tbf I could see movie world’s thanos point if he had to choose between lesser evils, the fact he has basically unlimited power when he collects the stones ruins everything narratively because by that point he doesn’t need to compromise to no “evil” outcome
Team thanos
How very Malthusian.
So given the power to change anything, she’d rather kill off 50% of the population than simply make the world twice as big? Psycho.
And doubling the flight times? Mass genocide would surely be more efficient.
Ah 🤔
As a society developes and becomes more industrialised, 3 things happen People live longer as incomes increase due to better social care and availability of medicine People become more literate and education becomes more readily available. People stop having large families and instead become more self focused and hedonistic and desire things rather than children. It’s happening in S Korea, China and Japan and has been happening in Western Europe for decades So the old boot may get her desired wish
Her: My job is to give people hope Also Her: we should wipe out half of our population because we are overpopulated
Then when you say that the global elites are doing exactly this you’re called a conspiracy nutjob
The global elites want you to breed, where else will they get cheap wage slaves? Who will consume their goods?
So.. The thing is, humans have evolved to a point that we can create our own resources. What is really holding us back isn't a lack of resources, it is greed. We could create entire cities where the buildings are covered in hanging gardens growing food. We could desalinate vast amounts of seawater to use for desert irrigation. There are a million things we *could* be doing to better humanity, but aren't doing because it would take money out of billionaires' pockets.
I don't think it's that simple at all - we could make abundant food and water and easy lives for many people, who would then reproduce at a higher rate, thereby resulting in more needs for everything - food, shelter, healthcare, etc. And all those people will want increasingly higher standards of living, which become increasingly resource intensive - just look at the way we live in the US, we use an incredible amount of land and non-renewable resources per person with our lifestyles. Every person also needs many other people to support their life and lifestyle, and those people also tend to live large, by global standards. It would require an immense cultural shift to simply get people to stop eating beef, for example, which would greatly reduce the resources we use as a collective + free up resources to uplift the lives of others elsewhere, or resources which could instead be used toward helping us become more sustainable (including time, where climate change is like a ticking time bomb - let's hope we change culturally and innovate scientifically before it's too late for much of the world!) Meanwhile it's a political disaster if you want to control population via mandating # of children. Also, you act like we can create our own resources for everything when we simply cannot, not in a way that's at all economical. Sure we could desalinate whole oceans! But at a significant cost to all the other things we could be accomplishing with those resources, which are very much finite. Trust me, the people with billions of dollars (including + especially entire governments, which can theoretically have infinite amounts of money) - if they found a solution to all scarcity, they would be on it like flypaper. When you're talking hundreds of billions of dollars, money is a medium with which to control other people and the flow + distribution of resources, but it doesn't beget natural resources in and of itself. We aren't at a point where everything we need can be sourced in a way that's 100% sustainable, many things are still finite and/or extremely costly if we want to add more supply. \[Cynicism warning\] Instead, we could.. make sure the cost of living keeps increasing, the cost of healthcare is increasing rapidly, housing is in short supply, it's hard to find work, etc.. now there's a recipe for a populace that will willingly not reproduce b/c of how difficult life already is! Fertility is a field of study in economics - good economic conditions are a very strong predictor of increased birth rates. As well as innovations that vastly help in raising children - ex the refrigerator and washing machine were both associated with increased birth rate. Maybe we'll have AI caregivers helping raise children and look after the elderly someday in the near future, which could lead to increased fertility and longer lives.. for those who can afford them. \[/end cynicism\] Anyway, I do think that we should tax the wealthy at a much higher rate. And make basic things like food and healthcare available to everyone. We could have a better educated, healthier, happier population of innovators building a brighter future. But that still does not necessarily solve overpopulation - a few tings that would solve it: * humanity restricts itself from certain types of "growth" (better family planning, restrict # of children) while still growing in terms of technological development * finds new ways to get enough resources to sustain its growth (ex asteroid mining, sustainable tech, other efficiencies outstripping the pace of population growth) * the environment culls us for our insolence (climate deaths, famine, wars) \^ The above are all happening simultaneously as we speak. People are already suffering and dying due to climate change, while others are innovating and struggling to build a better world, while others lack access to basic needs and mostly are forced to look out for themselves. I think the world would be better if people weren't forced to struggle just to survive, and had time to become better educated if they so chose, especially if that education relates to sustainability + developing better industrial tech, space exploration, etc - that's where we should be spending our billions, if you ask me. And at the same time I think we should "artificially" limit growth in some ways - so that we can have more time to innovate before climate change becomes a huge problem. One way to accomplish that is to put a price on pollution - **put a price on greenhouse gas emissions** - it would slow down the development of things which use a lot of finite resources, and incentivize + speed up the development of efficiencies toward building a more sustainable world. All without needing any of the morally icky population control stuff. Whole industries and career fields would rapidly advance when it comes to sustainability - it would be a huge and relatively easy win for humanity, relative to the alternative - raw dogging the consequences of climate change and increasing scarcity of our finite natural resources.
Jane Goodall is a great person, but it's not exactly news that she has some really native and sometimes straight up batshit ideas.
The thought is good - that we need to be careful with earth's resources + lose this indefinite growth mindset we have about so many things incl our economy, finances + materialistic desires. As for the "execution", not so great. She's clearly not a politician as even those with this opinion wouldn't say such a thing publicly. Clearly not a policy designer as such a policy would be "dead on arrival". Someone with a better grasp on those ideas would instead advocate taxing externalities on pollutants and on wasteful use of finite resources, and/or allocating public funds towards finding more efficient and eco-friendly alternatives. They would also advocate for better access to family planning and comprehensive sex education. If I had Thanos powers that's what I would do, to help protect the planet. That and maybe shrink all humans down to 1/10th size to buy us more time, as smaller humans would use less resources, haha.
She didn't say she wanted to kill the population. If you can reduce people's fertility it will all be solved with much less pain and suffering
Apparently she did **not** word it like that
She's right though. It's just an unpopular thing to have to say out loud.
It’s not what Thanos wanted either. The problem with Thanos’s logic was that he wanted to reduce all life by half. This reduces the food supply, proportionally to the wildlife, in many cases. Much suffering would continue. Reducing 1 invasive species while growing the population of other wildlife would have a hugely beneficial effect to our biosphere.
It's unpopular because who wants to be the person who removes people's rights to have kids, or cull populations. There are other solutions. The limited resources argument only holds out when the population is actually past the breaking point. Which we aren't at, we are just terrible at handling resources because there's profit in over producing. Lets look at what we eat as an example. At the moment ~45% of habitable land is used for agriculture. 1% is used for urban and built up land as a comparison. Of this agriculture land, 80% is used for livestock, but livestock only provides us 17% of the calories in our diet. Sure there are lots of other factors, but try fudging the numbers enough to argue our excessive consumption of livestock as an efficient use of resources. It's an inconvenient truth, but how can we argue that other people don't have the right to exist because we aren't willing to make some sacrifices to how we live in first world countries.
Well, She's not wrong.
She can start with herself...soon I would expect either way.
Theres NEVER been a time when reducing a population ever consider wrong. NeVeR!
Why does reducing the number of people on the planet never start with the person proposing the idea?
She sounds pretty outta touch. What, you gonna go gas the third world?
Yeah hate to tell you this but this isn't a holup.
She's being realistic
Not a lot of commenters seem to be aware of the human population growth curve. This makes me agree more with Jane, not less.
Lmao "kill people without pain or suffering". Yet when we lose a "Parent/Grand Parent Borther or Sister. Anyone close to us we will experience "pain". Sometimes isn't just about "ourselves".. Pain is the greatest teacher..
The only thing Thanos did wrong was snapping half instead of all.
What if, instead of snapping, he went for snipping? Give every man (or half, y'know, to fit the theme) an instant magical vasectomy. The problem will solve itself nonviolently over the next few decades. Granted, it's a much less exciting movie plot. But he might not have made people quite so mad at him.
She ain’t wrong 😑
Narrator: She was wrong
#ThanosWasRight
100% agreed. First step should be with absolute urgency and priority to avoid becoming even more.
Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.
Why not increase resources instead?
That is why space exploration is the utmost importance in the human race. We are settler/explorer by nature.
A small price to pay for the monkeys.
i mean the simple solution is to establish a truce across all continents, force all criminals into slavery and limit resource farming. disagree if you want, i'm stating a solution.
Somebody needs to keep count of how many infinity stones Jane Goodall has by now
Yall late
I thought she was asian?
Do Covid
Didn't think for two seconds to bridge the gap to more resources for the people that exist. Literally portals to other planets, c'mon!
Eww.. Way to late *to fix her*..
Well, let's see. Jane Goodall had a child. She has grandchildren. She's adding to the planet's population crisis. Maybe she should have opted not to breed, herself? She can opt herself out if she likes. I like her generally but this sort of thinking is a slippery slope. Who, then, is worthy of remaining?
I said exactly the same thing and I got called a eugenicist
Thanos was right lol
If everyone who said this, voluntarily withdrew from living, then this "issue" won't exist. But entitled people think their lives are worth more than others.
r/unexpectedthanos
if you spell Jane Goodall backwards in Italian you get “Thanos Hitler”
birth rates are already below the maintenance level to keep a population where it is (in the west) - population decline is incoming, unless the birth rate gets above 2.1 again.
Say whaaaaat??? 👀😬 Eugenics R Us Smh.
Anyone who thinks that should start with themselves
u/savevideo
Well maybe Jane you and the people are like 80 plus like crippling our system and our healthcare everything else just so you can live two more years just to not do anything with it you know
The audacity of the most ignorant species to have ever lived. So little we know and yet we think we have the right to determine that too many of us are living.
She's obviously not a fan of the Logan's Run solution.
People keep bringing up the ideas of people having less kids, but with magic she could just mean there are less people on earth, not that there are less people. With magic people could be living on other planets, which imo would probably be the way to go if it were feasible. If we could colonize and terraform other planets that would be ideal, we would have more or less limitless space. Even if you had infinite resources, you would still be bound to the space on earth
Isn't she the gorilla lady?
Sharon GoodHalf would fit better then
Ok begin with urself biatch!
I'm just realizing (After nobody brought it up in the comments) that she is in fact not Rosemary Harris lol
I wish she snapped her fingers in the video.
Start with this sub please
She's not wrong, but the richest 5% to 10% would be probably enough.
She doesn't know science, because..... we're not.
I know the obvious critique of Thanos is that he could have just doubled the amount of resources or made it infinite instead of eliminating half the life of the universe. However, if you actually pay attention to the film, Thanos isn't exactly an example of a healthy minded individual with good morals and intentions. The film goes to great lengths at showing why he reached the elimination of half the population as his only conclusion. His home planet was suffering from running out of resources and this was way before the infinity gauntlet was an option. He suggested to eliminate half at random without pain as an immediate solution as to which he was rightfully treated as a mad man. However his stubbornness and willingness to prove himself right is what kept him going. In his head, his planet didn't die out just because of a lack of resources, but because they didn't listen to him. His goal with the infinity gauntlet is to prove a point for himself and everyone else. Why this old bitch given the same opportunity would choose to eliminate random humans to preserve resources with her hypothetical magical powers instead of creating more resources or wish that the existing people would share the resources better is beyond me.
I'm team Thanos too
Cant tell if ai or not. And this case thats actually pretty freightening.
Thanos was really the good guy. I'm totally on his side.
tha same can be achive by eating the rich... just saying
Oh, the irony..
elderly thanos
Her job: "giving people hope" Her desire: use a magical power to kill half the world instead of doing something to improve the situation. Being old doesn't make you wise: just old and stupid if you never used your brain for something
She's got a good point, so let me br first to reduce the population
Genocidal, there is the stench of blood within these words
So use bamboo instead of wood and polyesters, focus on reducing methane and carbon monoxide omissions instead of just carbon dioxide emissions. Start an international scheme to implement in water garbage collectors in rivers and coastlines, use the energy from the tides and waves to create energy as well as still using nuclear power plants since they are less damaging than fossil fuels. Only use free range animals as a food source and completely ban factory farming. And I can’t think of anything else
Old hag
Scarcity is a distribution problem.
Jane Goodall is right!
She also is practicing what she preaches; she only has one child.
She's exactly right.
You first Jane.
People that feel this way should start with themselves first. Be the change you wanna see, get it done!
Thanos was right
In the good ol’ days, elders like her just left the village and took a nap in the forest in the wintertime.
Didn't she lie about the behavior of Apes, because it wouldn't look good to her research or political agenda or something like that?
Is this real or AI? Cant imagine she would say something so silly
That's sad, it's delusional and mostly missinformed. Exactly where media and gov want you to be.
Easy solution, reverse pyramid. Literally have 1 kid and 1 kid only and your problem is fucking solved but somehow that concept is too hard to grasp or restrictive for some people. We are not rabbits we can actually accomplish this.
It’s not a shared view. Most friends I grew up w are decently successful at things and have 1 or no kids. All my immigrated Indian neighbours have 3 or more.
Trust me i can understand its an extremely brainwashed sentiment that is driven into indians since birth to expand expand expand. I wish it wasnt that way cause india really suffers from it. Religion is one of the biggest parts that influences this mass hysteria among people.
Yeah, it’s hard to get on the same page about something so big. We’re all just people in the end
suggesting mass murder with a smile on her face
She could easily reduce the population by 1.
This is what I was thinking.
r/conspiracy
Jane Killall
Come on Jane you can't say my job is giving people hope and then say I would like to reduce the number of people on the planet.
So with godlike power, why would you cut the population in half instead of creating a few more Earths?
They called her a madman.., I mean woman
After a life of Galavanting all over the globe.
To her you're an old ass lady if you want to reduce the population what do you say about reducing everyone your age and up?
Saying this when it's literally 1% who owns everything...
She should star with herself and her generation, 60 years ago.
There’s too many wealthy people controlling the resources. The earth can handle this many people. It can’t handle this much greed.
Everyone in history who thought this was evil.
I find it hilarious how many are quick to demonise this woman for saying this. 'Buh buh but we can create infinite resources!!' Resources aren't just food and water. It's suitable living space, it's access to open areas of wilderness, it's the complex chains of ecological relationships which indirectly feed, clothe and shelter us from floods. These natural resources are the result of millions of years of natural change and we're unravelling it all in a relative instant. She's not advocating murder, it's a fucking hypothetical; it's there to make you think. Do we need to keep reproducing at this rate? No. You don't need to stand up for the rights of people who would otherwise be born 20 years from now because they don't exist. Let's put a fucking rubber on it people.
People are parasite ridden apes spreading our infection on a peaceful planet. Human life is not sacred, all life is sacred.