Halve Life 4b confirmed.
this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2026
112 points (94.4% liked)
memes
22190 readers
3545 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
How about we start with 1% and see what happens.
Just the top 10000 would make a big difference already
alternatively we could probably do with just reducing population by every CEO/comapany owner/shareholder/leader/whoever has control that refuses to become climate neutral
I like this idea, fuck tax incentives and carbon credits.
You get to neutral, you shut down your business, or you die. Your choice!
But the billionaires say we need MORE people so they have enough slaves of the colors they like!
It's like dogs or ball pythons. They're breeding selectively for the most desirable (to them) traits
Gotta have their favorite colorway
Thanos could have doubled the amount of space and resouces in the universe just as easily.
Just to get swallowed up by the same 1%?
Actually scientists in the 1970s were saying we need to do what we can to stabilize AT the 4 billion we were at then. See Limits to Growth and related studies. Cutting back now would help, but far more damage has been caused thanks to everything we've done including but not limited to population pressures than if we had heeded the warnings then and changed our direction. Some feedbacks are probably unstoppable now, no matter what we cut back.
That was primarily about the ability to provide food. The same scientists back then would have said we can't even reach this population level while eating meat.
They were correct until we advanced agricultural science and found ways to more than double our food production.
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.
Always has been.
Are these scientists with us on the room right now?
@laurenceOfSuburbia@lemmy.world [citation required]
bro its a meme for light chuckles. nobody said that seriously.