• setInner234@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    This is only a problem because people aren’t having children. And in some ways, that’s a good thing. Until we find more sustainable ways to exist, more children are not good for the environment.

    If governments wanted to encourage people having children, they’d have to do something to counteract the world turning into a capitalist-dystopian hell-scape. So far it looks like governments are doing the opposite. They act like it’s still the 50s with ‘The rising tide lifts all boats’ and ‘trickle-down economics’ still being things people believe in. Nobody does, though.

    How is anyone supposed to trust in the future, when it’s clear that the world is a rich people’s playground, where a few hundred-thousand people get to self-actualise in the most insane ways, while the remaining ~7.9 billion are wage-slaves having to live through shocking daily indignities at the behest of the ruling class.

    Not sure how we’d fix it though. Workers have no interest in acting in unison. While rich people do (and are much easier to coordinate). Eventually, the ruling class will just use AI-powered police / military to ensure nobody challenges the status quo. So it feels a bit like the game is lost.

    • HerrBeter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Some people not having children won’t solve the crisis, on the premise that no real action is taken against source of pollution. By that I mean both the private sector and governments give zero shits about doing anything remotely close to effective for stopping 100% of emissions now.

      Another thing I believe net zero 2050 is a scam in this. And I can’t seem to write a coherent sentence, just a bunch of statements