Humans

it would be better if we had less cats.

File: image.jpg (71KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 960x540px

>>2248642
https://youtube.com/watch?v=sp3nsgTQNiI

File: sidsad.jpg (90KB, 736x401px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 736x401px

>>2248642
Obviously, it's the only clear (and plausibly-achievable) solution to literally all of humanity's collective problems - everything would be better/easier with less of us. Also, you really can't rule out genocide as an idea - look how impossible it is to convince anybody who isn't white or Japanese to stop fucking like rabbits.

I still can't believe that /an/ tolerates tripfags.
>>2248642
Fewer humans means lesser impact, though some technology increases the impact. I mean, the first world's population is decreasing but the effects not so much.

And I want to mention that I'm not one of those environmentalists that thinks the world would be better without humans. There are both species that benefit from humans, and those that do not.

In the perfect world, every species would have a just-right-impact, so we'll have maximum biodiversity (implying of course that biodiversity has value). That means that the numbers of any species would be limited and distributed.

>>2248659
>I mean, the first world's population is decreasing but the effects not so much.

Because their governments are importing millions of Muslims to keep the population inflated, and many of them don't practice birth control

>>2248659
I don't hate the human race either, I just wish there were less of us.


And why does everyone gets buttmad when I say the world would be better with less human?

>>2248664
>And why does everyone gets buttmad when I say the world would be better with less human?
I personally do not, but it isn't necessarily true. Species of trees and animals would be just as glad to outcompete others, which non-native species show (but biological invasions would have happened regardless).

It is the scale that makes humans so destructive, if this disruption was more evenly distributed and with more time for recovery, we wouldn't have such a big environmental impact.

Scale matters for human problems too.
>>2248660
Immigrants add to the population. I am not so sure it is true that they have more children when in a first world country. What I am getting at is of course consumption.

Both population and consumption matters.

>>2248673
Also forgot to add, technology plays its role too. But consider it part of consumption i.e. energy consumption.

>>2248660
Right, demographic replacement far from counteracts the effects of natural population decrease. Our welfare systems (initially developed decades ago when our countries were just about monoethnic and with collective national cohesion) also fully encourage and subsidise minorities to sit at home all day and pump out kids (and to point this out you are demonised and villified in public life). Very scary stuff.
>>2248664
Who gets buttmad? Anybody who actually works in conservation or environmental matters would gladly agree with you - so ignore the opinions of apologetic, submissive, self-loathing liberal kids

>>2248677
>Anybody who actually works in conservation or environmental matters would gladly agree with you
I actually do and do not necessarily agree.

>>2248677
>Who gets buttmad?
My friends and family

>>2248681
What is your plan to fix the environment then?

>>2248681
Why?

>>2248673
First worlders consume the most resources

Inflating out population also inflates the amount of resources consumed greatly

>>2248681
Please explain how we can collectively decrease environmental destruction WHILST increasing the global population, without the assumption of radical governmental and societal reform.
>inb4 commieblocks and incredibly-high-density living with a complete disconnect to nature
Nobody wants that, and it depresses everyone

>>2248673
I do not understand. You think plants and others animals would cause more destruction than human?

>>2248687
>>2248707
>>2248718
Sorry I read to fast and didn't saw the less, I thought it said "the world would be better off without humans". Of course I can agree with less. But I don't think it is all that easy.

It is not only about numbers, it is also about energy consumption. Fewer numbers would certainly help.

>>2248721
>You think plants and others animals would cause more destruction than human?
I am actually saying that the scale of humans is unlike that of anything else.
But I am also saying that nature itself doesn't live in harmony, so that a world without humans isn't necessarily better.

There's no doubt in my mind that humans, especially as time progresses, are very destructive to the environment - that pretty much no species can match. I just don't agree that without us, the world would be better.

And I don't like it when nature is downplayed as fragile. Even with a sixth mass-extinction going on, there are species that thrive. That should be in no way an excuse for what is happening to the natural world, but we shouldn't indulge in too much of that downplaying.

I am a big pessimist, so I think it is inevitable that a large part of our biodiversity will go extinct, but that will also mean eventual recovery and time for other species to branch out and flourish.

I personally am very doubtful that technology will save us, with the exception of nuclear energy maybe (but it really just gives us time), so unless we drastically change our society I am a big pessimist.

And the latter I just don't see happening, because only so few people are willing.

There's also the fact that fewer people in this world would equal less human suffering.

If you're never even conceived, you're not "missing" anything. You don't exist..."you" are not even a thing.

So there are no unfulfilled desires. No pain, no misery.

Someone could say, "Yeah, but there's no pleasure either". But if you don't exist, then you have no desire for pleasure anyway.

Is there any problems that would happen if we reduced the human population a bit? Is there any scientists trying to do this?

>>2248763

There would be short term economic effects, and there are places such as Hawaii, Guam, New Zealand, etc., where if humans were to disappear or stop current conservation efforts the native ecosystem would entirely collapse because of invasive species, but that's about it.

Not to be mean, just curious: if all the poorfags from Africa disapeared, would it be good or bad for economy? They have no money to buy stuff, but many people donate for them.

>>2249173
>the native ecosystem would entirely collapse because of invasive species, but that's about it.
...
Certain species would most likely go extinct, and it is possible that the ecosystem would transition into something else i.e. a novel ecosystem. But it won't collapse, that's nonsense.

>>2249217
I would assume it would be "bad" for the economy, long term - but that's because our governments and the UN currently consider Africa to be a labour pool that can indefinitely replace natural population loss in Europe (it's outlined in UN population predictions, go read it).

Besides that though, I think you're right - as we all know, charity only provides material goods and temporary workforces e.g. sending over a few dozen bleeding hearts to build temporary housing. Africa isn't a massively profitable consumer base despite the numbers (although China is currently testing the waters with its dirt cheap terrible quality exports). The few Western-managed civilised areas are currently used for growing cheap vegetables and flowers (the land and workforce costs pennies) but otherwise, Africa barely contributes to the global economy, it just takes.

>>2249479
So, the problem would be the lack of workers?

>>2249507
Yeah - which is only bad if you're deluded enough to think the current model of infinite economic growth is reasonable in any way. With corporatism the way it is, only those in power benefit from keeping Africans on tap to alter our demographic trajectory, while the rest of us get our history, culture and genetic legacy erased. So fuck 'em.

File: cancerofhumanity.gif (15KB, 930x660px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 930x660px

>>2248642
1.Genocide everybody in this area
2.Turn all of it into a gigantic Nature reserve
3.???
4.Profit

>>2249570
I always thought it would be cool to have a place only for animals, untouched by humans. But we only have Antartica for that. (research bases aside)

>>2249570
Not even Africa, but there are some really poor people here in my country that are cancer too. They can't even buy food, but proceed to make 84934 kids and beg money from the government. Sometimes the government gives them money (so that the poorfags will vote for them later)

>>2248642
>>2248646

Fewer

How? By whom..... Perhaps it's already being done,,,,, people won't electively kill themselves off, but they do by buying and consuming cancer inducing products... It's a slow process, but voluntarily. Bad water, bad food, bad medicine.....

>>2248646
The illiteracy in your country is unreal

>>2249941
That does happen, but there are still many poorfags in the world that breed like rabbits.

>>2248642
Obviously it would be better for those living if there were less humans on the planet. There would be fewer people to share resources with.

File: adolf.jpg (44KB, 635x357px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 635x357px

>>2249883
Ja?