daniskarma

joined 6 months ago
[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 hour ago

AI is nothing more than a way for big businesses to automate more work and fire more people.

All technology in human history has done that. What are you proposing? Reject technology to keep people employed on inefficient tasks?

At some point people need to start thinking that is better to end capitalism that to return to monke.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 hours ago

Literally the only big problem with china one-child policy, was that sexist parents were practicing selective abortions to ensure that they get one male kid.

No sexism = no problem

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

By simple math each of those 1 billion people should be able to live with 10 times more resources at hand that if we had 10 billion people.

I don't think there's a way to live better without resource consumption and environmental damage. So the question keeps being the same. More people living worse or less people living better.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Each human needs a LOT of land to live to their fullest.

Do you want to live like in the 30s only to house more people?

Also it's an unsustainable point of view. If you defend letting people forever grow there's going to be a hard natural stop to that. Because at some point nature will make you stop.

I support a stable point of view. One billion of human beings on earth. Plenty space for us and for nature, les pollution, less emissions. Lots of chances for massive natural reserves...

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

The more humans we have the worse we will live.

I suppose it's a moral choice. More people living worse or less people living better.

I prefer the later. Specially because the prize is just having less children, it's just a small cultural change.

I get nothing out of a crowded world where I have to be miserable just to make space for more people.

Less people being able to live to their fullest seems the more humanist approach.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 7 hours ago (4 children)

Then maybe it's not only US and Europe the countries which should control birthrate.

The thing is that there is too many people. Land cannot house so many. We are destroying nature just because some people insist to bring more and more and more humans to this world.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (6 children)

My european country population keeps growing each years and birth/death rate while was good over some time (more death than births) is turning around once again and births are again skyrocketing.

We only had a few sensible years of decreasing population, since 2018 aprox population is again on the rise here.

Pretty sure US population has also being growing lately instead of decreasing as it should.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (2 children)

Derived problems were product of a sexist society should be avoidable, you know, ending sexism...

Or are you supporting that people should be able to want male babies over female ones?

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (13 children)

Hot take. Stop making so many new people so we don't have to live crowded like ants and destroying all our environment to provide housing.

Just stop having so many children.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 8 hours ago

There is a lot of things wrong on how we organize the economy.

If we are going to change that we may as well change it good.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 8 hours ago

There are infinite options we start doing fractions! (Please don't)

view more: next ›