You clearly do not understand what eugenics is, and I was literally arguing against that, as that is the only logical conclusion to keep the planet at its natural human carrying capacity.
Have you not thought through the consequences of your beliefs? Do you not realize reducing human industry and agriculture to “sustainable levels” means dramatically reducing human population because we cannot remotely sustain what we have now?
Do you know where the fertilizer used to make the majority of our food from otherwise marginally arable land comes from?
Don’t you high-horse me. You’re arguing in fa-our of a system that’s literally grouing and growing and growing. Further destroying the biosphere and therefore destroying the foundation of what we need to survive. You don’t destroy the biosphere for so-called “progress” that’s sells us fake-solution (electric vehicles that are unsupportable at the scale they’re marketed after fake solution (AI, that’s driving up the energy requirements needed for the transition to a more sustainable power grid) only to deepen the titanian rift between the poor and the filthy rich.
You’re the worst kind of eugenicist. The one who claims they have moral high-ground. “We never should have come that far”
You’re arguing in fa-our of a system that’s literally grouing and growing and growing. Further destroying the biosphere and therefore destroying the foundation of what we need to survive.
That ‘system’ is called human reproduction, our population is the reason for that growth, and the consumption of resources to fulfill it.
Your way results in harsh restrictions in reproduction, which might not be a bad Idea, but is definitely an unpopular one with moral concerns.
Otherwise we have to have an economy to sustain our population, I don’t even understand how you can try to bring morality into it, human reproduction has the morality of the virus, we don’t care what we destroy to reproduce, your parents didn’t, that’s sadly how life works.
The avalanche has already begun, it is too late for the pebbles to vote, the only rational thing (ie not throwing a childish tantrum that has no effect on reality) is to mitigate the damage.
Your religion is sad, guilt does not fix anything and there is no prize for the biggest victim.
Again, no other way to reply for you than to straw-man me and spout your eugenicist nonsense.
I’m not arguing for an end of reproduction, I’m arguing for the end of capitalism, before it kills us. If you don’t even acknowledge the existence of systems and lack the creativity of imagining anything else than the self-destructive uath our species is on, I pity you.
But don’t claim you’re basing your views on science if you literally ignore scientific consensus. You’re like a COVID-denier.
You clearly do not understand what eugenics is, and I was literally arguing against that, as that is the only logical conclusion to keep the planet at its natural human carrying capacity.
Have you not thought through the consequences of your beliefs? Do you not realize reducing human industry and agriculture to “sustainable levels” means dramatically reducing human population because we cannot remotely sustain what we have now?
Do you know where the fertilizer used to make the majority of our food from otherwise marginally arable land comes from?
Don’t you high-horse me. You’re arguing in fa-our of a system that’s literally grouing and growing and growing. Further destroying the biosphere and therefore destroying the foundation of what we need to survive. You don’t destroy the biosphere for so-called “progress” that’s sells us fake-solution (electric vehicles that are unsupportable at the scale they’re marketed after fake solution (AI, that’s driving up the energy requirements needed for the transition to a more sustainable power grid) only to deepen the titanian rift between the poor and the filthy rich.
You’re the worst kind of eugenicist. The one who claims they have moral high-ground. “We never should have come that far”
That ‘system’ is called human reproduction, our population is the reason for that growth, and the consumption of resources to fulfill it.
Your way results in harsh restrictions in reproduction, which might not be a bad Idea, but is definitely an unpopular one with moral concerns.
Otherwise we have to have an economy to sustain our population, I don’t even understand how you can try to bring morality into it, human reproduction has the morality of the virus, we don’t care what we destroy to reproduce, your parents didn’t, that’s sadly how life works.
The avalanche has already begun, it is too late for the pebbles to vote, the only rational thing (ie not throwing a childish tantrum that has no effect on reality) is to mitigate the damage.
Your religion is sad, guilt does not fix anything and there is no prize for the biggest victim.
Again, no other way to reply for you than to straw-man me and spout your eugenicist nonsense.
I’m not arguing for an end of reproduction, I’m arguing for the end of capitalism, before it kills us. If you don’t even acknowledge the existence of systems and lack the creativity of imagining anything else than the self-destructive uath our species is on, I pity you.
But don’t claim you’re basing your views on science if you literally ignore scientific consensus. You’re like a COVID-denier.