this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2026
82 points (79.7% liked)

World News

57440 readers
1110 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] unspkbl_horror@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago

So was this Elon who funded this study or Peter Thiel?

[–] DisasterTransport@startrek.website 27 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

Oh yeah? Which half? WHICH HALF MOTHERFUCKER?!?💢🪿🔪

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

By 2200, if you read the article. So basically have less children.

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

So basically have less children.

[–] DisasterTransport@startrek.website 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

What they are describing is a natural reduction in population that occurs automatically when countries become more economically developed. Trying to steer this is gonna have downstream impacts. You are not going to roll out these reforms everywhere all at once, so where are you going to start? Because if democracy and a global economy are still going to exist in 2200, relative population sizes matter. If, say, India develops their rural regions, does a 180 on feminism, and halves their population in the process, but Pakistan doesn't, that's going to have geopolitical ramifications, and not good ones. This kind of thinking scares me, no matter what the framing is. People are good, and we can have more of them, and we should have more of them. We just need to be smarter about how we use our resources.

[–] Siegfried@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You cannot build a policy in such a way that population halving is distributed equitably unless you run a global forced sterilization lottery. Which has its own ethical problems. Maybe we could, idk, all agree to eat beef twice a month instead of every day and stop throwing shit fits over renewables and nuclear before economics and water scarcity makes fossil fuel plants impossible to support. Just a thought.

[–] qevlarr@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago (14 children)

Malthusianism is fascist bullshit. Who has to go? This will be used for genocide if we allow any "there's simply too many people" narrative to subvert climate discourse.

We can feed, clothe and shelter everyone easily and comfortably. But we can't all have the luxuries of the most wealthy. Tough shit. That doesn't mean poor people having children has anything to do with our situation

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] SaorSol@startrek.website 19 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (11 children)

Funny how they leave out that taking just 1% of the wealthiest for a nice dirt nap would help more

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago

How about banning private jets first? And then stop subsidizing meat production? Then stop building cities around cars. Tax the production of plastic, to reduce the use of it.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 83 points 4 days ago (9 children)

Scientists argue that the indiscriminate use of Earth’s resources by humans has led to environmental effects, ranging from biodiversity loss to climate change.

Motherfuckers will find it easier to imagine genociding half of humanity than ending capitalism.

[–] Olap@lemmy.world 28 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Lol, what do you think indiscriminate use of resources is? That's literally capitalism!

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] filister@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago (6 children)

Halving the population would definitely help, but some country populations have a lot lower impact than others.

The real problem is the consumerism mentality, where we need to buy even bigger cars, TVs, houses, clothes, etc.

This is what destroys our planet. And even if the population halves, this trend can negate much of the effect.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] AnalogAllamma@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Study shows it's actually the massive corporate conglomerates that do exponentially more damage to the Earth than the entire animal kingdom combined, humans included.

Reduce your carbon footprint is a Big Oil created PR campaign. It places the "climate crisis" blame on the individual consumer.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 32 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Actually, we'd only need to lose 50 maybe 100 people. Total.

[–] Tango@piefed.ca 17 points 4 days ago (13 children)

Nah, their fortunes would just go to their heirs and you'd still have the same problem with roughly the same number of people. The solution is a system of regulation and taxation that stops incentivizing the pursuit of profit over all else. For example, shareholders should not be able to profit when workers don't. Real estate owners should not be able to engage in cartel-like behavior, collaborating with each other to fix prices.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tigermountain@lemmy.world 19 points 4 days ago (3 children)

I'd like to volunteer to start the list with about a hundred people we can get rid of right now.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] aproposnix@piefed.social 24 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Just waiting for Theil or some other tech bro to start a company called "Vault-Tec".

[–] Loce@lemmy.world 16 points 4 days ago

I fully expect project code name Thanos.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CobraChicken3000@lemmy.ca 27 points 4 days ago

Study reveals that humans are the main cause of human-caused environmental effects.

[–] Apocalypteroid@lemmy.world 16 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Isn't climate change going to take care of this for us? Parts of the planet are becoming uninhabitable, food crops are failing, fish stocks are on the verge of collapse.... We are going to struggle to feed 10 billion people unless things drastically change!

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] metermatic26@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Capitalism called.

They said “no”… ☹️

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PostProcess@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago

Can I get a snap?

[–] Nomad@infosec.pub 16 points 4 days ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Corvidae@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Meanwhile, in my country, the US government gives tax credits for children. No kids? No tax credits.

[–] Cornpop@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

…we really needed a study to conclude that lol I thought that was just common sense.

[–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago

You still need someone to write it down.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›