@[email protected] let’s make memes of halving (decimating?) billionare population instead, then :)

Would it? What’s the net worth of the 80,000,000th richest person?

Fine, let’s have a $50 million net worth cutoff as a start and we’ll keep lowering it until it works.

So you’re a multi millionaire, then?

Because I’m not, I can barely keep my head above water.

lmao you wish

The absence of their influence in Politics will make a massive difference.

The resources captured by the rich are probably a far smaller part of the problems they make than how they use the money they have to shape Politics and Public Opinion (via the Media they own), hence policies, hence the way our society and economy operates to maximized their own wealth.

Most Overconsumption and Negative Externality problems (both things that serve to maximized the profits that end up in the hands of Asset Owners and both the kind of thing that most damages the Environment) could be legislated away, but there is no will and there is no will because the politicians and the media are bought by those who benefit from things being as they are, and they are bought because those people have lots of money to buy them with.

Take the power to buy politicians and deciding what the press puts out away from the rich and all of a sudden profit-reducing pro-Environmental policies are not just politically acceptable but even demanded by public opinion, and given that said rich people would never give up on that without a massivelly destructive fight (literally Revolution), the safest and best option for about 99.9998% of people (8 billion minus 10,000 out of 8 billion) is that if they just die.

But we won’t know for sure unless we try.

And of course if they are gone, they won’t be there to kick and scream like children against every step of progress.

So you often feel the need to “one up” people in conversation?

It’s the poor half, not the giga-polluting americans (and europeans, to a lesser extend).

It was about estimating the effect of continued world population growth on the world’s carrying capacity. It’s true that it did not have a lot of other variables at play, one important one being climate change. So if anything it was a best case of just a few known parameters, and not all the ones we’ve affected, many that wouldn’t even be known then. The model’s projections hold up well enough to have been a wake up call to do something drastically different. And we didn’t.

The fact that we now recognize a date each year where Earth has reached its carrying capacity and that date steadily gets earlier should suggest they were right too. Along with plenty of recent studies that say the absolute maximum is probably around 11 billion (so maybe you are a bit correct in saying our tech has given us a bit more room), but the optimum population from these studies is around 2.5 billion.

It does depend on both the minimum standard of living being used as well as how well resources are distributed. If we set almost everyone to the lowest levels now existing, perhaps we could get a few billion more. If it doesn’t spike the death rates and reduce birth rates.

Almost like its not a population problem, its a logistics problem.

Less powerful mobs and they already feel the poors have bred beyond their usefulness and are now just a drain on the resources that the wealthy are destroying to make sure there’s not enough abundance so remaining people have to rely on them to survive.

It’s “their” planet. They deserve it because of their wealth. It’s how greed works. Most people aren’t overridden with greed and so don’t understand the concept fully. It’s a sickness… an addiction. So all they need are enough slaves to keep them fed and keep all their toys running (a couple million? Five?) and repair their vintage cars. You know, rich people shit. They’ll interbreed and voila! The species will devolve back into tree frogs or whatever we came from -

and that will be that.

No way to stop it now, that time has LONG past. So, have fun. But hurry!