Asklemmy

51663 readers

413 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

Would they dare to regulate (eliminate) part of the population if they no longer need us in the future? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 week ago by xiao@sh.itjust.works to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Assuming that in the future most jobs will be replaced by artificial intelligence or other advanced systems, is it (in your opinion) highly likely that the powerful figures of this world would want to commit genocide against a large part of the world's population, or would we be dealing with true philanthropists?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ganymede@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 days ago (5 children)

Although it is necessary to reduce population in general

is it?

there's perhaps too many people to live as wastefully as we do, oughtn't we reduce the waste then?

[–] StoneyPicton@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago (4 children)

There are absolutely too many people on the planet. It's not about waste (although that's part of it) as much as there are limited resources to feed everyone and make all their toys. Now it is possible to feed everyone for some time but we will be doing it while the natural world disappears. Some care, some don't.

[–] ganymede@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

there are too many people, to live the way we are. and the way we are living is shameful. what insanity would prioritise Many Not Existing so A Few can keep living a shameful life?

population distribution is anti-correlated with carbon footprint: "Richest 1% account for more carbon emissions than poorest 66%"

it's not about population, it's so A HANDFUL of overly-privileged people can continue to waste energy on eg. nice frosty transparent dialog boxes serving them slop advertising on their smartphone as they sit on the toilet - so that MANY MANY other people end up either not existing or starving just so they can enjoy the privilege

[–] StoneyPicton@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 days ago

Blaming the 1% is popular right now but not relevant to the impact population has on our world. Mineral extraction, land clearing for food production and the raping of our oceans is not being done for the 1%.

load more comments (2 replies)