You Have Time

its-jennyc001

batmanisagatewaydrug

can’t wait for the final boss battle of duolingo when you fight the 50 foot owl armed with nothing but your wits, a sword, and your shaky grasp of verb conjugations

Source: batmanisagatewaydrug

kaylapocalypse

tilthat

TIL of the Great American Horse Race of 1976 - a 3,500 mile long race with over 100 contenders mainly riding thoroughbred stallions. The winner ended up being Lord Fauntleroy, a mule ridden by a teenager, who beat the second place finisher by nearly 10 hours.

via reddit.com

Source: tilthat

entitledrichpeople

Capitalism produces scarcity artificially where there is none.

There are enough houses.

There is enough food (in fact there’s currently massive amounts of “overproduced” grain being left to rot)

There is enough water.

Even without changing the horribly designed production systems, there is no real shortage. People don’t starve, have no fresh water, have no houses to live in, etc. because there are not enough of these things. People don’t have access because capitalism denies them it.

There’s enough to share for everyone. It’s not a zero sum game for poor and oppressed peoples.

the-bitter-idealist

I known the argument that only GMOs can save us is untrue for the reasons above, but is overpopulation draining resources and killing the earth a lie promulgated by capitalists as a diversion as well? Would we be fine with this many people under a different economic/social system?

entitledrichpeople

Yes, overpopulation is a capitalist/racist myth too. It originated in racist eugenics theory and ignores issues of distribution, infrastructure/technology, and disparate impact in favor of fearmongering about poor/brown people having too many babies.

This one pops up a lot, so I’m going to post some links on it here:

Here’s a website dedicated to debunking overpopulation. It’s 101 and simple, but might be a good intro point for some.

Here’s a BBC article on the lack of good basis to even say how many people is the maximum the Earth could support.

A child in the US on average will use 13 times the energy of one in Brazil and 35 times one in India.

The wealthiest 10% of the world contributes 50% of emissions, but the poorest 50% only contributes 10% of emissions.

And even those estimates are off, because much of the energy use in the developing world is spent on resources sent to already developed/wealthy countries.

Within developed countries income has a stronger impact on household energy use than having another child does (with the wealthy consistently using more).

Just 100 companies contribute 70% of emissions globally-replacing those 100 companies with fully sustainable energy would fix 70% of emissions.

It’s impossible for developing countries to generally adopt Western style energy consumption development models on a large scale. And China, one of the larger developing countries whose government is a bit less under the thumb of Western imperialist powers, doesn’t intend to keep trying that either (instead investing in more renewable energy).

So, yes, it’s absolutely not the number of people that’s the main problem, but how resources are used and environmental management practices are done. If you were going to get rid of people to fix environmental problems, you would start with rich white Westerners, the opposite of who gets targeted by “overpopulation” panics.

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

More you might like