/new/ - New

Man does not exist separately from the environment

We can't, humans will never work together

Population Reduction (General): +
This is obvious, current trajectories and projections are unsustainable for even a short term, let alone generations to come.

Punishment-based Eugenics ("Billions Must Die"): x
Immoral and proven ineffective anyway

Reward-based Eugenics (Tax incentives or subsidies for people based on criteria such as IQ, criminal record, physical and mental health): +
I think this has potential, although you could turn around and consider this punitive for those that don't fit the criteria, ideally it wouldn't be any worse off for them than under the current status quo, though.

Pragmatic Eugenics (Long term welfare and unemployment subsidies in exchange for reversible medical sterilization/permanent sterilization of retards): +
I think this is extremely desirable; I know some exceptional people here wouldn't want this to apply to them and I'd agree-but at the same time the great majority of people using these services are not insular high IQ internet schizos. In general terms, if the public gives you something you ought to give the public something back, and in this case the assurance that you can't easily single-handedly create a horde of additional dependents is in my mind a fair exchange.

Vertical Farming: +
A bit tentative on this because I'm not sure the resources that might be required for their upkeep. They're extremely efficient when it comes to producing vegetation and they're hygenic to the point of sterility, but I feel like there may be externalities in the long term to consider.

Cultured Meat: +
Some may disagree but I think this is good. I do not think that real meat and this industrialized product are mutually exclusive, rather I believe that they can exist side-by-side and help consolidate currently existing traditional farming and meat production methods into a more humane form more in line with those of our ancestors.

Plastic Alternatives: +
Another obvious one, there are a lot of such things in the works that are quite encouraging. Products made of vegetation that expires slowly enough that they can see their use-case through without creating long-term waste.

Population Density As Conservationism: x
There are those that suggest we basically be mandated to live in dense cities so as not to interfere with or intrude on wild spaces. This one is controversial for obvious reasons. Most people who are environmentally conscious-rightly I believe-do not enjoy the idea of living in that manner, however, in conjunction with everything else it is a sacrifice that would be better for the environment as a whole, but coming at the expense of freedom of movement and the kind of pastoral life that is arguably best for the human sovl.

the "Personal Transportation vs Public Transportation" Argument (moving away from cars): x

I understand some grievances with personal transportation but most if not all of them are consequences of overpopulation rather than a condemnation of freedom of movement in the general sense. I think it's agiven that most people would support alternatve fuel sources so long as they're actually better for the environment.

LGBTQ++': +
I will preface this by saying that this category does NOT include capital G "Gays" as a political body nor does it make exceptions to whatever obnoxious (parades, public exhibitionism) or predatory behaviors gays can be associated with such as pedophilia or grooming etc. (in the latter case these are crimes that heterosexuals commit as well so it's an unfair comparison). I just mean "in general" taken individually.

I am not gay myself nor are many of those reading this, but it's nonetheless undeniable that if nothing else their existence serves and advances the ultimate goal of population reduction in a manner that is-in comparison to many other methods at least-harmless. Peaceful and ethical reduction of the human population is probably the most important goal in conservationism, ergo whatever we may think about their sexual eccentricity is ultimately meaningless, and we should treat them-not with reverence like the neo-libtards do-but without any particular animus based solely on their lifestyle either.

I'm still thinking of more things for this survey but it's all I got now. I think it'd be nice to hear people's more detailed thoughts and specific proposals they may have in mind when it comes to this topic.

>>2135
Wuts efap heh

>>2151
Eco-Fascism/Anarcho-Primitivism lol heh

>How do we consolidate human comfort and convenience with conservationism?

Have less people, so there's more to go around. Literally every problem associated with environmentalism exists because of overpopulation but nobody wants to talk about that. Falling populations in places like Japan, a country with a similar number of people as the USA crammed into a tiny island like sardines, is considered disastrous because muh muh capitalist economy muh growth.

>>2135
Heh I'll do the survey I suppose.

>Population Reduction (General): +
Population reduction is wholly positive at this point. Right wing types will try to say it's only relavent in third world shitholes like Nigeria and India, and while those countries do suffer from crippling overpopulation we in the west would benefit from it as well. Americans enjoyed a similar/higher standard of living in 1920 as they do now, with a quarter the population. You simply don't need billions of people to operate a modern society.

>Punishment-based Eugenics ("Billions Must Die"): x
Pure fantasy. An admittedly enjoyable fantasy but not a realistic policy.

>Reward-based Eugenics (Tax incentives or subsidies for people based on criteria such as IQ, criminal record, physical and mental health): -
The governments of the world, particularly the west, have very dubious track records with eugenics. Going down this road again doesn't seem like it would be beneficial to humanity.

>Reward-based Eugenics (Tax incentives or subsidies for people based on criteria such as IQ, criminal record, physical and mental health): -
Unnecessary. If you want retards and crazies to sterilize themselves they'll do it themselves, happily. Look at trannies. Look at birth control pills. Just offer them the drugs for free and they will take them.

>Vertical Farming: +
It's kind of cool. I feel like it's solving a problem that doesn't really exist though. Vertical farms are hydroponic, and you could set those up anywhere in a less expensive horizontal configuration if you chose to. Space for agriculture isn't really a problem, the issue with agriculture is unsustainable farming practices (designed to maximise output in the short term to keep a giant population alive) and shit like building suburbs on the most fertile ground.

>Cultured Meat: -
A joke product. It's grown on a strata of blood so animals are still involved in the process. Expensive, disgusting, and pointless. Massive livestock cultivation is damaging to the environment but again that's a population problem. There's too many cows because there's too many people who want beef. The solution isn't to degrade our standard of living to support more useless eaters, it's to reduce the number of people demanding resources.

>Plastic Alternatives: +/-
Plastic is actually an amazing material, it's just used for retarded things like product packaging. There's also no real attempts to recycle it. Most "recycling" just ends up being burnt.

Plastic "alternatives" like cellulose based plastics aren't really anything new or exciting. The first plastics ever made were bioplastics. They offer certain beneficial qualities. The main issue with plastic pollution is in product packaging. Something like 90% of household waste is product packaging. It's largely unnecessary too.

>Population Density As Conservationism: x
An idea based on the insane ideological position that we need to increase the population by any means necessary. At best this is a very temporary stopgap measure. Again, I don't think we should lower human standards of living to support an unnecessarily huge population of useless eaters. Population reduction would increase wild spaces and relieve pressure on ecosystems more effectively, and people would still be able to live more or less normally.

>the "Personal Transportation vs Public Transportation" Argument (moving away from cars): +
Cars offer a limited form of freedom for people who can afford them, but in the past you could get on a train and go anywhere you wanted. Cities designed around cars are extremely inefficient and difficult to live in. Cars definitely have a place in the world, especially for rural people, but you shouldn't need a car to live your life and get around. Giant crowded highways are a blight.

>LGBTQ++': +
Generally positive. Troons are crazy but they're also sterilizing themselves and removing themselves from the gene pool. Something like 0.5% of people are trannies so it's kind of an astroturfed issue.

>I'm still thinking of more things for this survey but it's all I got now. I think it'd be nice to hear people's more detailed thoughts and specific proposals they may have in mind when it comes to this topic.

Environmental issues include things like pollution and deforestation. Global warming is a big issue as well whether or not you believe it's real. It's the biggest headline of the age I'd say.

>>2153
Japan has a little less than half the population of the US, 10% of which live like ants in Tokyo. It's completely ridiculous. How is that justifiable? That's significantly worse than any American city in fact. It's pajeet tier.

your LARP won't work because landlords and banks won't allow population reduction

They were complicit with the vax tho heh

>>2167
Low IQ take
They already have all of the money
They print the money
They don't need 9 billion shit-eating peasants

>>2324
Nobody has billions of dollars in a bank account. The economy is built on debt and speculation. The whole scheme collapses without the guarantee of steady inflation and steady growth. Scaling things down would mean a catastrophic loss for them. They need "9 billion shit-eating peasants" or they need a new way to move around their funny money.

Consolidate what? If WHITE people were in control we would fix everything, there would be no problems. The NONWHITE problem is really just an extension of the environmental problem (or the other way around, basically means the same thing).

>>2445
Pretty much.

>>2445
Little dude needs to go full outlaw

So heckin' epic wholesome chungus look at all the diversity

People should strive to limit pollution as much as possible. Industrial waste and microplastics are an abhorrency, and the corporate overlords and politicians should be dragged out to be hung from the highest tree. We need responsible population control.

That said, humanity is not the primary cause of climate change, those lying FUCKERS are using misdirection.

>>3246
global warming is fake
anyone who trusts the soyence is gay
soyentists fuck dogs

>>3248
In a certain sense it's fake. In the way that THEY want you to think it works, it's fake. Climate change is real, it happens, it happens all the time, it's happened since the world formed an atmosphere. Basic real science tells you that the world shifts, common sense tells you that those shifts cause changes, nevermind the effects that solar and even stellar activities have on the state of the planet.

>>3259
You can argue about how much impact humans have on the environment, but it seems dumb to say they have none at all when they spew so much garbage back out into nature that biodiversity is rapidly shrinking. Not like cancer is becoming any less common.

I don't deny man-made climate change but I sure as hell don't want to pay another tax or reduce my standard of living. Go tax the mega rich, the jews and women, not me, why should I suffer but not them.

>>3261
I completely agree. Of course it's always the lower classes that have to pay when their collective impact is nothing in comparison.

global warming 100% debunked

>>3261
global warming is 100% fake

>>3261
>I totally buy the liberal narrative but I am offended that liberals would use their narrative to punish me.
Stupidass piece of shit. Neck yourself.

>>3273
>I completely agree!
Kys

>>3344
Nah, retarded contrarian faggots who can only think in thought-terminating cliché that is effectively no different than the "NPCs" they cry about like you should off themselves and botch it so they are rendered braindead or severely impaired (rather than just low IQ).

>>3352
>hurr durr ur not a deep thinker and you don't post a bunch of words like me!
reddit is that way, retard.

>>3353
>omg one sentance r lot word u need copypaste trite phrase liek meh hyuck!!!!1111
Zoom on, overcompensating retard.