Is there a better way to protect the ecosystem than culling the human population by the billions?
>>5068446yeskilling the entire human population
>>5068446What do you mean by "protect" and why would it require the death of humans to facilitate it?
>>5068459Protect from the invasive exploitation of resources, pollution and anthropization. It would require less people because less people need less resources and pollute less and occupy less space.
You don't need to do anything actually. The humans that produce food and technology are currently unwilling to breed which means in a generation or two their population will shrink drastically, which will also mean the ones who breed but aren't productive will start starving to death. Nature is taking care of it, so to speak.
>>5068446>>5068462>>5068465It's the natural way of rebalancing. Either we do it oureselves, or something else will do it to us.
>>5068462>Protect from the invasive exploitation of resourcesBy what standard are we classing all of this?>>5068473>natural wayThis is another part of the problem. How is human activity not also part of the "natural" process?
Create habitat. It doesn't take much effort to make a pile of brush or rocks. If you are feeling super motivated you can buy some pond liner and dig a pond for the wildlife to drink from and mosquitos to breed in.
>>5068446its not like we don't have simple solutions that don't involve genocide of humans, it's that companies don't give a shitwe have all the green tech we need, but switching costs money and why switch if it makes money? surely the earth is infinite and we will colonize mars or something fuck I hate humanity
Instead of killing billions of random people, killing billionnaires is a far easier (and more achievable) way to protect nature !
I don't think switching to green tech is the solution desu, I think we need to reset the system that we're living in. Technology is going to be the doom of humanity. We should revert to a far simpler life.
We had solutions even before green tech. We have had the tools for nearly a 100 years now but as a society we have never bothered to deal with the expense of developing the infrastructure required to make it happen. I understand why, but the fact we are not willing to go through the growomg pains around it is a grave indictment of our motivation for any degree of change for a supposedly dangerous trajectory in the near future. We have the transit, energy and communication systems for a better envriomentally aware world, we just can't be assed to do it.
>>5068446And on cue, nobody suggests the glaringly obvious solution which is stopping mass immigration and stopping all aid to the third world.Nope, it's the standard fed-approved answers of -"indiscriminately kill most of the human population""kill billionaires""post Jesus and quote Malthus""Invest in solar panels and wind farms""reject technology""talk about all humans as if they are exactly the same as each other and exist as one big large community"Anything but the obvious solution they don't want you to know about.
>>5068446It's better we kill all the humanity
>>5068528You already said this here OP.>>5068451
>>5068528>>5068446why do you ascribe value to human abstractions that dont even value themselves?ecosystems are just transitory points of relative equilibrium between transitions to other points of relative equilibrium.you want to kill the beholder to protect the beauty that only exists in the eye of aforementioned beholder.
>>5068503if i were a multibillionaire i would've bought natural land all over the world to turn them into private natural reserves with heavy armed security on the border. i don't know why irl billionaires buy megayachts instead.
>>5068535so you said we should instead exploit freely every natural resource until we inevitably die because of our own retardation? you know what do it? animals. and we're a step above animals, we have the capability of becoming the protectors of earth, and shepherd life itself. but no, that's not what the theories of evolution and natural selection say, right? we're not allowed to interfere, we need to keep behaving like mindless beasts until the day of our extinction.
>>5068552>so you said we should instead exploit freely every natural resource until we inevitably die because of our own retardation?That's the problem. That hasn't happened and isn't happening.It's an imaginary scenario you invented in your own head to justify your own beliefs.
>>5068552>and we're a step above animalsLol, here comes the vegan/eco warrior fallacy of "we're just just as valuable as other animals but I'm not going to hold non-human animals up to any standards of behavior."Wolves removed many cat species from Europe?pass!Nautilus almost completely wiped out by seals?Pass!
>>5068552>we have the capability of becoming the protectors of earth, and shepherd life itself. but no, that's not what the theories of evolution and natural selection say, right? we're not allowed to interfere, we need to keep behaving like mindless beasts until the day of our extinction.Proof that eco / vegan warriors are weird religious nutjobs.
Remember when normies couldn't go travel during corona and nature massively recovered? Just ban long distance travel. Alternatively..
>>5068446Yes, only doing that in africa and india
>>50685801.451 billion Indians today.1.561 billion Africans today.1.650 billion East Asians today.8.200 billion people today8.2 - (1.650 + 1.561 + 1.451) = 3.538 Billion
>>5068584>getting rid of the only other civilized people>not south americans
>>5068585I was just including the three largest population groups without any regard as to how good they are.
>>5068473Funny pic
the problem is africans but environment communists would never admit it
>>5068446Deindustrialization
