this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)
196
17790 readers
415 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There are more houses/apartments than people.
There is more food going to the trash than what we need.
It's not that we have a lot of people. The problem is the greed of a few and the complacency/idiocy of the rest.
Yeah, having kids probably reduced my household resource consumption, compared to the dual income no kid lifestyle that my wife and I had before kids.
Population growth is so far disconnected from resource consumption, because people's resource consumption does not resemble a bell curve. A private jet produces more CO2 in an hour (about 2 tonnes) than the average Indian produces in a year (about 1.9 tonnes).
The poor people having children aren't destroying the planet. Rich people, childless or not, are. (And yes, I acknowledge that I fall under the "rich" category here.)