Oh true true. I forgot about the square-cube law.

Bro caught me slippin’

Yea. All the real collegiate degrees and the bullshit degree.

There is a key for — on my phone. Just hold down the - key and it pops up as an option. I use it all the time.

For it to be scientifically accurate of a comparison, the ratio of weight:human needs to be equal to that of rider:horse, not a direct flip.

In case my phrasing is confusing, to illustrate what I mean here is an example: a 200lb horse carrying a 100lb human is equivalent to a 100lb human carrying a 50lb weight.

TIL what quotation dashes are.

This is why I always donate my finished books to my local library. I don’t need them and, if I want to read them again, I can always just go check it out from the library.

I would assume there would be arguments around transporting them increasing the chances of it breaking. It would really only make sense to move these back to their country of origin and have them remain there to minimize potential points of failure. The rarer the artifact itself (another rusted out sword or plain clay cup versus a one of a kind manuscript whose pages have become incredibly delicate) the less their respective owners are going to want it to be moved.

Instead, we should be allowing more people the ability to travel and take time to go explore other cultures in their country of origin instead of trying to transport priceless artifacts across the globe.

I’m dismissing your points because they are irrelevant points when you actually consider them critically.

I’m a dick because I’m tired of entertaining bullshit arguments and rhetoric throughout this thread.

You say you agree that “no authority should decide if and how many children a person can have”, then provide a bullshit hypothetical, and then use it as justification for proposing exactly the thing I said I am against with another hypothetical. You absolutely do not agree with me if you think your hypothetical is okay. It absolutely is not and is a direct violation of autonomy when you think about how that decision to limit the number of children someone can give birth to would have to be enforced. Forced population control is literally eugenics in disguise.

And that’s after repeatedly denying the science behind microplastics causing an increase in infertility rates from the earlier argumens. I cannot stand science denial. It pisses me off.

If you’re still wondering why I’m abrasive, you’re never gonna get it.

And, nah, I won’t go offline, you can cope.

From my perspective it is a disingenuous, bad faith framing of my position meant to exaggerate it and mock it as if it was absurd.

but if everyone had eight kids it’d probably be a problem.

Yea no shit, but that’s a stupid hypothetical that is most likely not going to ever happen, so it isn’t even worth considering.

What would you think if a democracy decided no more than two? How would that sit with you?

I’d tell those people to go fuck themselves and if they force my partner to have an abortion against their will just because we went over their arbitrary limit, that I did not agree to, then there’s gonna be a fucking fight for our right to have a child if we so wish.

What part of “no one should have authority over the reproductive rights of others” is unclear?

Build it, let them experience the results of praxis first hand, give them a chance to be a part of it to get a see internal politics in action, then it becomes hard for them to deny the validity of the ideology behind it after they put the dots together.

Bro you have way too much trust in mainstream news outlets. Things happen all the time that the media is silent on. Just because something is happening does not mean it would be in the mainstream news cycle, in fact more things happen every day that will never be reported on. That doesn’t mean they aren’t happening. Literally, scientific research proves as fact that there is a rising issue with infertility rates. That number has gone up, and prevailing research points to it being caused, in part, by the buildup of microplastics.

Second point, yes that’s true but that is not what was being discussed. Just because that is true does not justify a body of authority to dictate the reproductive choices of individuals. Also, just because those two points are true does not make the tertiary point that “we have reached peak population capacity” true. That claim is entirely false.

Third, also true, but again that wasn’t the topic and is only tangentially related to it. That’s a separate discussion on climate change and its causes.

Something some well regulated militia something something

We know that but the average numpty doesn’t understand the difference between climate and weather and that ignorance is being exploited through manipulation of rhetoric.

I think the biggest issue around doomerism is the framing. Everyone frames it as if we should just accept that society is doomed and give up, but that’s not what it is about. Doomerism is about accepting that society as we know it is doomed if we continue doing what we are doing.

Yet saying this isn’t a call to give up and let it happen. It’s a call to wake up and realize we have to dig deep and fundamentally change how we are doing things.

Things are hopeless in our current society, so we need to work to change into one that can have hope for a bright future. To do that requires letting go of the old one.

Solarpunk for me has always been, at its roots, an anarchist ideology that espouses the tenants of mutual aid and bottom-up, horizontal community structures to build a self-sufficient, sustainable society. That’s the “punk” part of solarpunk.

I think we shouldn’t use up every atom on Earth to churn out more humans.

Good thing no one said to do this. I don’t appreciate bad faith reframing of my argument.

Jesus fucking Christ, go read the research into the issue of rising infertility rates and see where they are getting their data from. That’s where the people are. You think scientists just make these numbers up? Just because you don’t constantly hear about it in the news means it doesn’t happen? Are you dull?

I don’t give a fuck what pre-agriculture tribes did. We don’t live in a pre-agriculture society. The point is that no authority should have control over the reproductive health of another, that unethically violates the autonomy of the individual and leads to eugenics.

People are not starving due to the rising populations; this is a bullshit, shortsighted framing of the argument that is rhetorically deceptive. They are starving due to the unethical distribution of resources. They aren’t starving because they have more mouths to feed, they are starving due to systemic oppression preventing them from accessing readily available resources with which to feed those extra mouths while a small percentage of humanity consumes excessive amounts of those resources while forcing wasteful production practices to chase after imaginary tokens of perceived value.

If we weren’t being forced as a society to produce so much excess for these small minded moguls of industry and restructured society to incentivize sustainability over profit generation, we would have more than enough to go around.

Yes, everything you said is good, and we should be attempting to restructure our society to be more sustainable and ethical in our use of resources but that is a much larger political discussion about economics. I know there are currently natural and sociopolitical phenomena that are slowing down the growth of certain regions but the reasons why is a much larger, multifaceted discussion. Populations will fluctuate naturally and that’s all fine and dandy.

but my point was specifically against those who call for attempting to steer the process in an effort to deliberately reduce the population through planned means which is intrinsically linked to eugenics arguments when you get down to the sociopolitical mechanisms of how that will be accomplished.