“Yes we understand the problems but instead of tackling poverty and widespread hunger and pollution let’s just reduce 99.999% of the population by not having babies, which is a totally sensible way to solve the climate catastrophe”

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments

Why do they still hold on to the “exponential growth” excuse? The population is currently increasing, but not exponentially, and will eventually plateau in the next century. Granted, the world will be a hellscape if nothing changes in 100 years, but the majority of consumption occurs in industrialized countries with lower birthrates. I can almost guarantee that this r*dditor has a greater impact on the climate than a family of subsistence farmers in Bangladesh.

permalink
report
reply

Main

!main@hexbear.net

Create post

THE MAIN RULE: ALL TEXT POSTS MUST CONTAIN “MAIN” OR BE ENTIRELY IMAGES (INLINE OR EMOJI)

(Temporary moratorium on main rule to encourage more posting on main. We reserve the right to arbitrarily enforce it whenever we wish and the right to strike this line and enforce mainposting with zero notification to the users because its funny)

A hexbear.net commainity. Main sure to subscribe to other communities as well. Your feed will become the Lion’s Main!

Good comrades mainly sort posts by hot and comments by new!


State-by-state guide on maintaining firearm ownership

Domain guide on mutual aid and foodbank resources

Tips for looking at financials of non-profits (How to donate amainly)

Community-sourced megapost on the main media sources to radicalize libs and chuds with

An Amainzing Organizing Story

Main Source for Feminism for Babies

Maintaining OpSec / Data Spring Cleaning guide


Remain up to date on what time is it in Moscow

Community stats

  • 131

    Monthly active users

  • 38K

    Posts

  • 385K

    Comments