ganymede comments on Would they dare to regulate (eliminate) part of the population if they no longer need us in the future?

Would they dare to regulate (eliminate) part of the population if they no longer need us in the future? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 11 months ago by xiao@sh.itjust.works to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Assuming that in the future most jobs will be replaced by artificial intelligence or other advanced systems, is it (in your opinion) highly likely that the powerful figures of this world would want to commit genocide against a large part of the world's population, or would we be dealing with true philanthropists?

[–] ganymede@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Although it is necessary to reduce population in general

is it?

there's perhaps too many people to live as wastefully as we do, oughtn't we reduce the waste then?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[+] StoneyPicton@lemmy.ca 1 point 11 months ago (4 children)

[deleted]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] ganymede@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

there are too many people, to live the way we are. and the way we are living is shameful. what insanity would prioritise Many Not Existing so A Few can keep living a shameful life?

population distribution is anti-correlated with carbon footprint: "Richest 1% account for more carbon emissions than poorest 66%"

it's not about population, it's so A HANDFUL of overly-privileged people can continue to waste energy on eg. nice frosty transparent dialog boxes serving them slop advertising on their smartphone as they sit on the toilet - so that MANY MANY other people end up either not existing or starving just so they can enjoy the privilege

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[+] StoneyPicton@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

[deleted]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] ganymede@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

yep i completely agree. even just considering warranties & right to repair stuff alone accounts for absurdly unnecessary ecological impact. when we consider the direct environmental harm + total carbon footprint of mining something out of the ground, transporting, refining - AT THE SAME TIME AS THROWING IT OUT IN THE TRASH - due to planned obsolescence, anti-repair strategies or just terrible waste recovery programs.

it's also insane seeing the attempts at green-washing greedy decisions (eg. apple making customers pay extra for a charger, apparently as a green initiative) meanwhile they're deliberately impeding device repair efforts, again purely for commercial greed, and this time very blatantly harmful for the environment.

many electronic devices used to come with repair manuals for the customer to read. now it's the opposite, companies going out of their way to pressure chip makers TO NOT EVEN SELL CHIPS TO ANYONE FOR REPAIR PURPOSES. apart from antithetical to the apparent principles of free market, it's just ridiculously unnecessarily harmful to the environment.

(they also love to suggest modern electronics are to small/complex/whatever to repair these days. and in absolute extreme cases that's fairly true, but in alot of cases it absolutely is NOT impossible. specialised repair equipment used to be crazy expensive, and you can get started easier than ever. but still, it's becoming a niche, and sometimes illegal [DMCA], it whereas it used to be the norm)