I may be in the minority, but /r/freefolk was a fun time back in the day.

I completely missed the “with” in your first sentence and, wow, I had some thoughts and feelings which I am glad I didn’t share without re-reading what you wrote first.

Suuuuuuuure. Found the assassin! /s

Matt Damon? Or is our gene pool really that shallow?

Well, thank you for your reasonable response. Have you seen Parks and Rec though? Because your response kind of sounds like it’s continuing the joke…

In the end, the real forbidden fruit was fossil fuels.

He thinks he already has won, and 2024 is just the end of his vacation.

Could be a 3rd party

But who would benefit from this kind of special political operation?

Edit: I am completely and utterly shocked!

Probably how the raw milk sinkers think of themselves too. Super-powered, misunderstood, fighting an oppressive government, actually the hero.

The reality? Bit-character, backwater hicks.

A cancer taking the side of cancers? Colour me shocked.

I mean, yes eugenicits have used carrying capacity in bad faith arguments. But why do the same and discount carrying capacity entirely?

TLDR: carrying capacity has been used by eugenicists in bad-faith arguments, but the finite nature of Earthly resources is a fact; ignoring it entirely makes any counter-argument against eugenics inherently flawed and weaker. When paired with the uncertainty created by human invention and potential extra-planitary resources, carrying capacity can be acknowledged as fact but effectively caveated, and instead debate can be shifted away from absolute limits on resources we are unlikely to hit, and to the much more important matter of the distribution of resources.

There is a finite amount of stuff in/on this little space-ball we call home. Some of that stuff is more rare, and some of it we need more of. There are physical limits to resources on Earth and I think it is fair to acknowledge that as well as helpful to avoid being wasteful with those resources or blind to the disparity of how they are distributed. Not acknowledging such a clear fact instantly gives the people using carrying capacity in an argument ammo to support their other non-factual claims and discount any other claims you make because you made this clearly unfactual claim about carrying capacity being just a made-up thing.

However, no other earthly species is as adept as humans at modifying their environment and the way they use resources. We find new ways to use resources, or replace resources entirely. See anyone using whale oil for lamps anymore? Nope, we changed what resources we need by advancing our lighting and power technology. We can’t determine carrying capacity for humans on Earth because we don’t know the limits of our ability to invent and adapt.

Also, at some point people have the potential to get off our home rock and start exploiting resources on other space-balls. The actual carrying capacity for Earth suddenly becomes meaningless. Will we make it that far as a species? I donno, but the possibility needs to be considered when discussing carrying capacity.

Much more important than carrying capacity is the distribution of resources. Currently, our resource distribution systems are incredibly inequitable and wasteful. As other have pointed out in this thread, at current capacity the resources we extract could address the basic needs of all humans many times over. It’s a human issue that we don’t do that, and that we polute/waste/etc, not an environmental/system capacity issue. We have improved these systems in the past, and we could improve them going forward.

I donno, you really think that guy was that smart? He wanted to give plants water. Like, you know, what is in the toilet.

I always feel like these induced demand arguments are suggesting that adding more lanes means the same number of people are just choosing to do more driving. Maybe, as you add more lanes you create the infrastructure for a city to grow, and it adds more people which then fill up the new lanes. People aren’t just going out and buying a new car or rolling an existing car out of the driveway that they were previously not using because a new lane is built. These are net new drivers, who would not be in that city if the infrastructure for them hadn’t been built.

Corpos seeking synergies are excramentatitous

Republicans? Hamas. Democrats? Hamas. Basically anyone who disagrees with us at any specific moment regardless of their previous or potential future positions, Hamas. We have the best justifications in the world because of Hamas.

Isn’t this kind of a garbage comparison? Your chance of dying by childbirth is zero if you choose not to have kids, or if you biologically can’t have kids. Same with almost everything on this list, other than the only other medical intervention of GA (which you may not have a choice to avoid if you need it for a medically necessary procedure). Wouldn’t it be better to compare it to the risk dying of COVID? Or the risk of dying from other common vaccines?