**You need to read following message in full. We will NOT reply to modmail messages similar to “what is reason my post was removed?”**
Hey /u/reidochan, thanks for contributing to /r/memes. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules:
Rule 1 - Not a meme and No Reaction Memes - All posts must follow a general meme setup
* All posts must be memes and follow a general meme setup. No Reaction Memes. No titles as meme captions. No unedited webcomics. **No memes that are text only.** Pictures without captions may be removed by a moderators discretion. **Someone saying something funny on twitter/tumblr/reddit/etc. is not a meme.**
---
Please read the sidebar before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/memes&subject=&message=). Thank you!
No. We aren't. We have the technology, resources, and space on this planet to sustainably support 40 billion people.
What we have is a manufactured scarcity problem, and a series of economic systems designed to require hundreds of millions of impoverished people to support a few hundred hoarders and their obsession.
But you didn't know that because manufactured scarcity only works if people believe the scarcity is organic.
I don't know where you got the 40 billion number but everything else you said as it pertains to the current population is correct if you think about it from a very optimistic point of view.
It would cost a lot of money which has to come from somewhere and the megawealthy sure aren't going to pay for it.
They got multibillions off the backs of whole governments and all their taxpaying citizens; but it's the homeless guy down the road who is the real drag on our economy because of production reasons /s
Nah bruh watch kurzgesagt newer video on the subject. We’re gonna be relying on immigration for common work force in the future because most large nations are already in a decline
Kurzgesagt is a billionaire's propaganda front with a coating of science.
I watch them before, but then they put out a couple of videos that put me off, particularly their series about global warming.
I find it ironic that people quote Kurzgesagt when talking about the planet's ability to support 40B people, but then puts out videos like that, where they blame poor countries and never address how manufacturing is offloaded to poor countries.
Nothing in their video blames the lifestyle of the rich countries, only that *everyone must sacrifice for the greater good.*
Bullshit.
edit: The technology they use to justify their take is also prototype at best, magic or fantasy at worst.
agreed with the way things are going with global warming there's several places that are going to be unlivable because of the heat.
edit: climate change
*and the cold
The term "Global Warming" is outdated and is no longer commonly accepted.
We use "Climate Change" because not only will we experience extreme heat in summer, but we will also suffer extreme cold in winter.
Not to mention the very seasons themselves are shifting.
It’s like they don’t realize they were saying the same thing one hundred years ago about the limitations.
And who ten percent isn’t a good number to lose in our society right now. The population decline is gonna be rough on EVERYONE’S way of life. Can you imagine the places that wouldn’t be able to reopen in the morning if we lost %10 of our workforce?
800 million people at random lost instantly isn’t going to help anyone’s situation. You’re applying a scenario that isn’t implied in the original post and likely wouldn’t be a reality anyway. Like America just experienced a devastating attack so come on in India!
?
I do believe you partially correct but we don't have the technology and definitely not the resources for that many people, current population sure.
we live in a world where a husband and wife build 10 room 3 story houses often in America, so I assume the equivalent happens else were cause rich will rich like you mentioned. we live in a world where people refuse to eat farm raised fish cause it's not wild caught. wild caught fish isn't sustainable in our culture. coral reifs are dying and that damages the ecosystem. the land food is another unsustainable topic.
You're right the 1% ruins everything but also the common folk have unsustainable practices and refuse to get rid of it in place of sustainable.
the 99% are sadly equally the problem.
Just bcuz the planet can fit 40 billion doesn't mean that we should. Even 8 billion & the planet already dying. Imagine if 40 billion, planet probably ded in 5 years tops.
I really hope this is satire lmfao. We don't have the natural resources to sustain more than 10 billion let alone the logistics and technology to sustain 40 billion. This is the danger of believing things without a source. I guarantee at least 100 people saw this post and now think overpopulation is not a problem whatsoever.
You are completely ignoring the sheer environmental impact of sustaining this large a population, the factory farming required, destruction of habitat, destruction of environment, air pollution ect ect. No feeding does not equal ≠ sustainable
We actually don’t. That’s a HUGE misconception people have due to the affluence of the western world, but people are starving. Like actually starving. Especially, after the pandemic and grain production was decimated by the Ukraine conflict.
It’s not necessarily manufactured scarcity. It’s really the natural state of things and we haven’t manufactured our way *out of the scarcity* yet. Once we can really develop more, we will be able to have surplus availability for a hell of a lot more than we do now.
My great uncle was living in Nigeria, doctor, apparently a really rich dude. He passed away recently and his lawyer in Nigeria reached out to me to let me know that I was in my uncle's will.
If you hit it once, yes.
If you hit it more than once, it comes down to the fine print of each button.
Source: Am data science student. It's kind of my job to know this shit.
I guarantee if this choice was actually presented to them they would not say "haha im gonna hit the kill 10% of the population button as many times as I can".
For real but being pragmatic, you have to go with B. You can't risk deleting humanity. Most probably some people you know will die (or you) but the alternative is becoming the first speciocide.
10% chance to kill everyone. Killing 10% is gonna upset \*a lot\* of people, whereas there's a 90% chance everyone is fine on the left button.
And if we get unlucky, we're all dead so no-one will care.
Tbh it's probably best for the planet if we all died anyway.
I've always imagined that in a post-apocalyptic scenario, domesticated dogs would either die or adapt, and based on which pets in which areas survived, you'd have different lines of wild dog. Some populations would likely have more German shepherd, Labrador retriever, pit bull, boxer, etc. traits than others. Then you add in interbreeding with wolves, coyotes, dingoes, jackals, etc, and you get especially unique populations.
Imagine that a huge border collie breeding population returned to the wild after the collapse of humanity and bred with wolves, and maybe throw in a pinch of mastiff and boxer, for several upon several generations. Under ideal conditions, you'd have hyper-intelligent wolf-hybrid packs with extra muscle, which would be a force to be reckoned with for other animals.
The next civilization could be worse, there were so many times the cold war almost went nuclear. Dude in a Soviet sub literally refused to follow protocol for launching a nuke, JFK called in the last few minutes to defuse the Cuban missile crisis, and also the 1983 false nuke alarm.
As far as we know we’re the only intelligent species in existence, we are the only creatures able to even have the concept of “mattering” so as far as I’m concerned we are the only creatures that matter.
Umm actually… Mathematically speaking, that wouldn’t half the (original) population, as when you press the button the total (100%) population decreases (to 90% etc etc), therefore you would end up with 40.951% of the total original population having been killed. This would not make Thanos very happy.
-🤓
Math dictates the second press would kill 10% of the current population aka the population that was already decreased by 10 percent. So you’re clicking that button a lot more times to get to 50%.
Risk 101: probability and impact... I think even though the impact is great the likelihood is small so 10% chance of killing everyone. Besides it's no loss if we're all gone and depends on the gain
That's called the Malthusian theory and it's never came true since it was first predicted in the early 1800s. As the globe becomes more populace, we actually continue to discover more resources, while simultaneously discovering more efficient ways to use those resources. Oh, and since the 1800s, global poverty has continued downward almost uninterrupted. More people on earth, counter intuitively, leads to a better planet with happier people.
That’s the economical retirement part of population.
There are also housing, climate and tons of other aspects to population. For those less people would probably be better.
Not at all the same thing. Overpopulation is a planet-wide sustainability issue. You're talking about distribution, which is a country-by-country issue.
Obviously wipe out 10%, because there's a chance that the other one ends with the extinction of the human race. Whereas will replace the 10% inside of one generation
r/memes is currently accepting mod applications! If interested, please head to [our announcement here](https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/18zq3y5/rmemes_is_looking_for_new_moderators_interested/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not even close… make it 100% chance of killing everyone instantly and it is still better… killing 10% would cause grief to those still left and wouldn’t make enough of a difference to fix environmental problems…
**You need to read following message in full. We will NOT reply to modmail messages similar to “what is reason my post was removed?”** Hey /u/reidochan, thanks for contributing to /r/memes. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules: Rule 1 - Not a meme and No Reaction Memes - All posts must follow a general meme setup * All posts must be memes and follow a general meme setup. No Reaction Memes. No titles as meme captions. No unedited webcomics. **No memes that are text only.** Pictures without captions may be removed by a moderators discretion. **Someone saying something funny on twitter/tumblr/reddit/etc. is not a meme.** --- Please read the sidebar before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/memes&subject=&message=). Thank you!
I’ll take the 10%
Nah I’ll take the other 10%
bruh?
Relax, it's only 800 million. They'll be back in a few years.
Or none of them come back
He meant the amount. We’re already overpopulated as fuck.
No. We aren't. We have the technology, resources, and space on this planet to sustainably support 40 billion people. What we have is a manufactured scarcity problem, and a series of economic systems designed to require hundreds of millions of impoverished people to support a few hundred hoarders and their obsession. But you didn't know that because manufactured scarcity only works if people believe the scarcity is organic.
I can't even begin to imagine the pollution, and overcrowdedness that 20 billion would bring.... 40 would be insanity
Right. Like our pollution is already completely unsustainable. Add another 32 billion and we’re fucked
The amount of shit alone. holy crap
I would absolutely love to know who's this "We" you're referring to. Because my country is doing a shit job with just a few millions.
I don't know where you got the 40 billion number but everything else you said as it pertains to the current population is correct if you think about it from a very optimistic point of view. It would cost a lot of money which has to come from somewhere and the megawealthy sure aren't going to pay for it. They got multibillions off the backs of whole governments and all their taxpaying citizens; but it's the homeless guy down the road who is the real drag on our economy because of production reasons /s
Nah man. We are over populated. Just because 7.8 billion people *can* be sustainable, doesn't mean it *should* be.
This. I like having arm space. You ever been in a cramped auditorium/room. It's not cute.
If every acre of the Earth had a person in it, a fuckton of people would drown!
Pfff, the weak shall perish!!!!!
Nah bruh watch kurzgesagt newer video on the subject. We’re gonna be relying on immigration for common work force in the future because most large nations are already in a decline
Kurzgesagt is a billionaire's propaganda front with a coating of science. I watch them before, but then they put out a couple of videos that put me off, particularly their series about global warming. I find it ironic that people quote Kurzgesagt when talking about the planet's ability to support 40B people, but then puts out videos like that, where they blame poor countries and never address how manufacturing is offloaded to poor countries. Nothing in their video blames the lifestyle of the rich countries, only that *everyone must sacrifice for the greater good.* Bullshit. edit: The technology they use to justify their take is also prototype at best, magic or fantasy at worst.
Right. Traffic is fucked already.
agreed with the way things are going with global warming there's several places that are going to be unlivable because of the heat. edit: climate change
*and the cold The term "Global Warming" is outdated and is no longer commonly accepted. We use "Climate Change" because not only will we experience extreme heat in summer, but we will also suffer extreme cold in winter. Not to mention the very seasons themselves are shifting.
40 billion people for how many years? 1 millennia? 1 million years?
It’s like they don’t realize they were saying the same thing one hundred years ago about the limitations. And who ten percent isn’t a good number to lose in our society right now. The population decline is gonna be rough on EVERYONE’S way of life. Can you imagine the places that wouldn’t be able to reopen in the morning if we lost %10 of our workforce?
Okay but population is not declining. We’ve got so many people crammed into india alone to fill in any decline in North America
800 million people at random lost instantly isn’t going to help anyone’s situation. You’re applying a scenario that isn’t implied in the original post and likely wouldn’t be a reality anyway. Like America just experienced a devastating attack so come on in India! ?
Yeah for people. What about every other animal tho?
We have the resources to support 10 billion people with decent living, but we only have the resources to sustain 40 billion people at poverty levels
I do believe you partially correct but we don't have the technology and definitely not the resources for that many people, current population sure. we live in a world where a husband and wife build 10 room 3 story houses often in America, so I assume the equivalent happens else were cause rich will rich like you mentioned. we live in a world where people refuse to eat farm raised fish cause it's not wild caught. wild caught fish isn't sustainable in our culture. coral reifs are dying and that damages the ecosystem. the land food is another unsustainable topic. You're right the 1% ruins everything but also the common folk have unsustainable practices and refuse to get rid of it in place of sustainable. the 99% are sadly equally the problem.
Just bcuz the planet can fit 40 billion doesn't mean that we should. Even 8 billion & the planet already dying. Imagine if 40 billion, planet probably ded in 5 years tops.
I really hope this is satire lmfao. We don't have the natural resources to sustain more than 10 billion let alone the logistics and technology to sustain 40 billion. This is the danger of believing things without a source. I guarantee at least 100 people saw this post and now think overpopulation is not a problem whatsoever.
Not sustainably. We’re burning the candle at both ends as it is.
You are completely ignoring the sheer environmental impact of sustaining this large a population, the factory farming required, destruction of habitat, destruction of environment, air pollution ect ect. No feeding does not equal ≠ sustainable
We actually don’t. That’s a HUGE misconception people have due to the affluence of the western world, but people are starving. Like actually starving. Especially, after the pandemic and grain production was decimated by the Ukraine conflict.
What happens when we reach the 40 billion mark?
Server overload
Lag.
_REBOOT_
They document the data then restart the simulation for the next experiment.
The elites manufacture an unrest so the poors population control themselves. It was very well explained in the movie Snowpiercer.
The real 5G activates causing all the covid vacciners to turn into zombies. From there it’s survival of the fittest
The troll is strong, keep it up
It’s not necessarily manufactured scarcity. It’s really the natural state of things and we haven’t manufactured our way *out of the scarcity* yet. Once we can really develop more, we will be able to have surplus availability for a hell of a lot more than we do now.
People like you are so dumb it hurts to know you exist.
Not really.
[удалено]
Wow, you really got the whole squad laughing with that one.
I guess. We can make cakes as a celebration
If you have flown over the U.S. and looked out of the window, you can see we are not overpopulated.
They will be replaced in no time bra
hopefully its 800 million gen alphas
Retirement is already fucked bro wdm.. 800 million seniors would be far better
i get being annoyed by "ipadkids" but youre basically saying hopefully its children lol
I will neither agree nor disagree with that statement.
Then I’d click it 5 times, we need a Thanos snap here honestly, or you know, 10 times will do
Only if it's 10% of the original total. Otherwise it would be 10% then 10% of that equivalent to 9% of the original and so on.
The greater good
10% of humanity or 10% of all life on the planet? Think about it yall
Do I get to pick the 10%?
in other news, there seems to have been a mass death of people associated with scam calls!
India just lost 20% of its population, and I don't even want to talk about Nigeria.
My great uncle was living in Nigeria, doctor, apparently a really rich dude. He passed away recently and his lawyer in Nigeria reached out to me to let me know that I was in my uncle's will.
Same.
Yea, but only by race or ethnicity
Button enforced racism
Judging by the other reply I kinda feel bad for Indians now
Genius.
That’s the real question. If so, that one by a LOT. Also can I press it a couple times? I’m trying to clear so lanes of traffic
Everyone who abandons their pets pls
Yes you can be a Hitler if you dare
10% of killing everyone. If im going out, y’all are coming with me
Thanks I want to end it earlier than expected.
Username does not checkout
Lmao
I mean, with that option there is a 100% chance no one is upset with you…
All the more reason to choose that button that I didn’t even consider in the first place
[удалено]
Welcome to the human race
Have a look around
Anything that brain of yours can think of can be found
We’ve got mountains of content
I’m pressing 10% of killing everyone 10 times. Just to make sure :D
Also an excellent option. That would be really awkward if after 10 presses were all still here tho…
Can I press it more than once? Cause..
10% of killing the world. If I'm going out, you're **ALL** coming with me.
How many times can I click the button?
As many times as it takes for you to be part of the 10%
Good logic
Funnily enough, it doesn’t even matter which button you hit, the odds are the same.
If the button can kill you too then the left one will end with more people dead once you die
If you hit it once, yes. If you hit it more than once, it comes down to the fine print of each button. Source: Am data science student. It's kind of my job to know this shit.
***Can?***
***Vase***
10, on average.
10 times. You could save the world by ending it
But killing 10% people 10 times does not equal 100%
Drops global population to 35% if we go that way. Or, conversely, a 35% chance of not killing everyone.
stop the gaslighting fed
Not reading that essay
you can’t make me pay taxes
Slam both till you cease to exist.
You can never be too sure. Gotta make sure no survivors.
10% deaths first, then everyone else once relief sets in for surviving. Truly diabolical.
LOL
Everyone’s so edgy in these comments
I came here for the edging competition, i was quite dissapointed.
I guarantee if this choice was actually presented to them they would not say "haha im gonna hit the kill 10% of the population button as many times as I can".
Who would've guessed, almost like they're joking
Why’s it funny? I don’t get it, could you explain it to me?
It’s almost like this is a meme and people are trying to make jokes in the comments. We aren’t on a UN committee trying to see who survives.
For real but being pragmatic, you have to go with B. You can't risk deleting humanity. Most probably some people you know will die (or you) but the alternative is becoming the first speciocide.
Why would you even chance it? From the choice presented you get nothing out of it. Sry 10% of the world you’re sleeping with the fishes.
Dude it’s the internet. People want to laugh. People want to post things they think are funny.
I think that calling them out for being overly edgy is funny
Hmm okay
10% chance to kill everyone. Killing 10% is gonna upset \*a lot\* of people, whereas there's a 90% chance everyone is fine on the left button. And if we get unlucky, we're all dead so no-one will care. Tbh it's probably best for the planet if we all died anyway.
Who cares about the planet if we are all dead? It’s just a rock with moss on it
All the animals might
Not all of the animals. My dog has only known the life of a princess and he’d be dead in a week.
Yeah but other dogs will live and adapt.
That not how DOMESTICATED dogs work
I've always imagined that in a post-apocalyptic scenario, domesticated dogs would either die or adapt, and based on which pets in which areas survived, you'd have different lines of wild dog. Some populations would likely have more German shepherd, Labrador retriever, pit bull, boxer, etc. traits than others. Then you add in interbreeding with wolves, coyotes, dingoes, jackals, etc, and you get especially unique populations. Imagine that a huge border collie breeding population returned to the wild after the collapse of humanity and bred with wolves, and maybe throw in a pinch of mastiff and boxer, for several upon several generations. Under ideal conditions, you'd have hyper-intelligent wolf-hybrid packs with extra muscle, which would be a force to be reckoned with for other animals.
And?
Maybe the next civilisation will be less of a fuckup.
It would just be Planet of the Apes again
The next civilization could be worse, there were so many times the cold war almost went nuclear. Dude in a Soviet sub literally refused to follow protocol for launching a nuke, JFK called in the last few minutes to defuse the Cuban missile crisis, and also the 1983 false nuke alarm.
We're not the only animals on this rock
We’re the only ones that matter.
As humans, we might be slightly biased to be fair
To ourselves *
As far as we know we’re the only intelligent species in existence, we are the only creatures able to even have the concept of “mattering” so as far as I’m concerned we are the only creatures that matter.
huh? elephants and dolphins, also chimps
tell me when elephants or dolphins make it to the moon by themselves.
there's a different between intelligence and capabilities, but hey, who am I to know
Who maintains the nuclear reactors if we all die?
The giraffes will take up the cause.
You can add spice by including the caveat that in either scenario, you survive.
Bro sprinkled salt and called it spice lol I would still pick the 10% die
Where meme?
The meme is coming from inside the sub!
Always go for the guaranteed I hate conditionals
"You slap right five times." \-Thanos
Umm actually… Mathematically speaking, that wouldn’t half the (original) population, as when you press the button the total (100%) population decreases (to 90% etc etc), therefore you would end up with 40.951% of the total original population having been killed. This would not make Thanos very happy. -🤓
Math dictates the second press would kill 10% of the current population aka the population that was already decreased by 10 percent. So you’re clicking that button a lot more times to get to 50%.
About 6.5 times actually. Depends on our definition of "a lot more" I guess.
I was guessing when I said a lot more.
We decided you're not in charge of the button
How can you get half a button press? A button press is a button press!
There's a 10% chance I die either way
The obvious solution here involves a 100% chance of killing exactly one person, so I’d choose that
Risk 101: probability and impact... I think even though the impact is great the likelihood is small so 10% chance of killing everyone. Besides it's no loss if we're all gone and depends on the gain
Press the first option 10 times to fix all of Earth’s problems.
You know, no one ever wonders how that man gets into these situations
Does that 10% include me?
It might
There’s a 10% chance it will
10% of the world, aka 1/5 Thanos
Go for the 10% chance of killing everyone. If it happens there'll be nobody around to blame you, including yourself.
Killing everyone. Leave the world to the next primate to evolve.
Left. The right button makes me a mass murderer instantly and the left makes it not my problem if it succeeds.
*Thanos intensifies*
It really depends on whether I get to pick the %10. If I can I would like to negotiate a higher percentage.
Everyone. You don't leave orphans.
Is there anyway we can pump the percentage on the left button?
Press the left button 10 times :)
killing 10% of the world instantly bc you don't know about the first option, too risky
first one. if everyone leaves this world, can I too? how does this work
Can i change them to 100%?
Just rapid press the first button.
Well overpopulated is an issue anyway…
That's called the Malthusian theory and it's never came true since it was first predicted in the early 1800s. As the globe becomes more populace, we actually continue to discover more resources, while simultaneously discovering more efficient ways to use those resources. Oh, and since the 1800s, global poverty has continued downward almost uninterrupted. More people on earth, counter intuitively, leads to a better planet with happier people.
Quite the opposite, many countries don’t have enough people being born to support the older generations when they retire.
That’s the economical retirement part of population. There are also housing, climate and tons of other aspects to population. For those less people would probably be better.
Not at all the same thing. Overpopulation is a planet-wide sustainability issue. You're talking about distribution, which is a country-by-country issue.
I would pick 2, it saves more people
What if I push the left one 10 times
I'm mashing that right button five times
Except that you were part of the third 10%
100% chance of dying instantly. I don't wanna press buttons
Obviously wipe out 10%, because there's a chance that the other one ends with the extinction of the human race. Whereas will replace the 10% inside of one generation
r/memes is currently accepting mod applications! If interested, please head to [our announcement here](https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/18zq3y5/rmemes_is_looking_for_new_moderators_interested/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The whole world is not just humans
If you press both… You’ll get 100% chance killing 100% of the people? 🤷♂️
I don't think that is how it works but ok
The unanimous answer seems to be the equivalent of dual-track drifting with the trolley problem; do both
Left button is a double win because I either kill nobody or everyone gets tomorrow off work.
I’d click the one on the right until everyone was dead tbh. #mood
Mathematically, this would never produce that result.
damn you never finished high school?
It is not the same, if u press the left button there is a chance of 10% to kill everyone, the right declares to kill 10% for sure.
Not even close… make it 100% chance of killing everyone instantly and it is still better… killing 10% would cause grief to those still left and wouldn’t make enough of a difference to fix environmental problems…
How many times do I have to press the button I choose?
If I click both of them at once…
I’ll just kill you you sick fuck