aquariastars

But the press was ecstatic for a chance to discredit EDI (always referred to as DEI, because we all know who half these pieces of shit are getting their cues from too), and every single Black person in academia for being a woke diversity hire. The news cycle has been stuck for a ridiculously long time on the story of one (1!) man perhaps having dodgy credentials and academic history as a chance to put Black people aiming for any kind of proficiency and success in their fucking place. The case was brought to light by a self-professed race realist (read: outright racist) who believes Black people are genetically inferior, and this motive, and the implications of his accusations, were hardly questioned (and let's not act like this wasn't because a huge number of these reporters absolutely fucking AGREED, because racism in this country is rife and barely challenged, no matter how inaccurate and no matter how vile). No matter how accurate any of Cofnas' claims, we know why he was making them. We KNOW why.

why?

"you rap about arthurian knights everytime, it's embarrassing"

ok

[after one beer]

I have pretty high climate anxiety so of course I read these posts and panicked. But then I looked up the study and here are the main points that tweets don't cover:

The study advocates slowing and gradually reversing population growth to ∼4 billion or less by 2200. Not a mass killing of half the planet immediately or even by 2050.

The number 4 billion was calculated using a lot of math that I don't 100% understand. But what I do understand is that humans (and the planet) do not always operate in line with math equations. Math equations are useful when you are using available data, but they do not account for changes in future behavior. They only use what is available and measurable now.

The study is analyzing human impact on a per capita basis. So yes, rich people and wealthy nations are still the problem. The study doesn't advocate for slaughtering the poor, it advocates for lowering environmental impact on a per capita basis. Destroying capitalism actually would help here.

Rich people aren't reading studies. They barely believe in climate change. They're not going to use this one paper as justification to slaughter half the population. They want population growth, if anything.

"Save the world" is not a scientific term. The study advocates for reducing total human population as a way to reduce human impact on ecosystems, C02 emissions, and resource use. Again, these are per capita impacts, so individual people and/or populations may be higher impact or lower impact. Also killing the poor isn't going to help in this scenario.

There is a whole section explaining what the scientists think is "sustainable" and it specifically talks about how complicated that is.

The paper advocates for cutting the population in half by giving women more access to reproductive care, including more access to family planning.

The paper highlights some global trends that are already helping to reduce our per capita impact (ex: lower fertility rates and efficient water usage), all while making allowances for advancements in technology to help (without relying on those things exclusively).

This is only one model, and scientists are keenly aware that projections beyond the year 2100 are shakey. One model isn't fact and doesn't predict the future with 100% certainty - it's just one tool we can use to inform policy decisions.

The global population was at 4 billion I think like 50 years ago so the number isn't like some next to nothing unit that will shock humanity and leave is scrambling.

If you see the phrases "imminent food shortages" and "water wars," please look up what studies those are referencing because in my experience, those are just vibes. Resource use is complicated.

So yeah. Honestly, I don't see anything that alarming about the paper. It only advocates for 4 billion based on mathematical trends, not actual resource usage, and the meat of the paper (reducing human impact on a per capita basis) is not really different from what we've known for decades. We can argue all day about the number 4 billion, but personally, I think the per capita stuff is more important.

Here's a better summary of the study than what some people are pushing: