How about we start with 1% and see what happens.
this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2026
433 points (94.5% liked)
memes
22426 readers
2577 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Just the top 10000 would make a big difference already
Then the systems that prop up that 1% continue on as if nothing happened, only people might be paid more evenly.
That's it. Expecting a fundamental shift in how humanity/global society functions just because a comparitive handful of people die is just ridiculous.
But we won't know for sure unless we try.
And of course if they are gone, they won't be there to kick and scream like children against every step of progress.
The absence of their influence in Politics will make a massive difference.
The resources captured by the rich are probably a far smaller part of the problems they make than how they use the money they have to shape Politics and Public Opinion (via the Media they own), hence policies, hence the way our society and economy operates to maximized their own wealth.
Most Overconsumption and Negative Externality problems (both things that serve to maximized the profits that end up in the hands of Asset Owners and both the kind of thing that most damages the Environment) could be legislated away, but there is no will and there is no will because the politicians and the media are bought by those who benefit from things being as they are, and they are bought because those people have lots of money to buy them with.
Take the power to buy politicians and deciding what the press puts out away from the rich and all of a sudden profit-reducing pro-Environmental policies are not just politically acceptable but even demanded by public opinion, and given that said rich people would never give up on that without a massivelly destructive fight (literally Revolution), the safest and best option for about 99.9998% of people (8 billion minus 10,000 out of 8 billion) would probably be that a handful of rich people just die.
load more comments
(20 replies)
But the billionaires say we need MORE people so they have enough slaves of the colors they like!
load more comments
(2 replies)
alternatively we could probably do with just reducing population by every CEO/comapany owner/shareholder/leader/whoever has control that refuses to become climate neutral
I like this idea, fuck tax incentives and carbon credits.
You get to neutral, you shut down your business, or you die. Your choice!
It is widely understood that Thanos was insane. Resources aren't naturally limited and his campaign of slaughtering half the populations of planets didn't ensure plenty for the masses. What he accomplished was to teach otherwise isolated civilizations that unless they put aside their differences and worked together they were vulnerable to devastating attack.
The only scarcity there is or ever has been is artificially created by either ineptitude or purposeful in order to prop up the wealthy who are given ownership of land and resources.
If he truly wish for a prosperous universe he would have snapped those fingers and installed the knowledge to create a post scarcity society on every planet with intelligent life in all beings. Because with all things the answer is EDUCATION NOT DEATH.
load more comments
(9 replies)
population x individual emissions = global emissions
Which number you want to change says a lot about your politics.
edit: given it’s the daily mail *spits on the ground* it’s very likely the researchers didn’t even say anything about which number to tune, the daily mail just added their special flavor to the headline. (probably also have a good idea which 4 billion has to go)
Eating the rich would do more
Gee, I wonder which group is going to be genocided by the wealthy....
load more comments
(3 replies)
The upper crust (the top 1/2%) want the 'herd' trimmed by 96%. This leaves 3.5% left to feed and slave for the 1/2% who will be living in Greenland on virgin soil drinking virgin glacier water and who run Earth's feudal system.
Half? You're a dreamer!
Why would they want so few people to oppress and exploit?
Less powerful mobs and they already feel the poors have bred beyond their usefulness and are now just a drain on the resources that the wealthy are destroying to make sure there's not enough abundance so remaining people have to rely on them to survive.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Thanos could have doubled the amount of space and resouces in the universe just as easily.
Just to get swallowed up by the same 1%?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Less consumers and less slaves? Noooo what will the investors do? We need MORE MORE MORE
Most of the destruction is Capitalism and Consumer Society overproduction and overexploitation - a lot of unecessary shit is done and a lot of what's done is done in unecessarily destructive ways (with lots of Negative Externatities) when it could've been done in far less destructive but less profit-generating ways, all because our political and economic structures are dedicated to the maximization of the wealth of the richest people.
(It's not by chance that Ecologist parties are generally leftwing - the politicies for protecting the Environment are generally diametrally opposite of the politicies that maximize the investment profits of those who own most shit and have the most money)
I bet that only about 100 people need to die (all billionaires) to save the planet, an acceptable sacrifice.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Or, yk, live in a different way. But that might be harder than having a lot of people die. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Actually scientists in the 1970s were saying we need to do what we can to stabilize AT the 4 billion we were at then. See Limits to Growth and related studies. Cutting back now would help, but far more damage has been caused thanks to everything we've done including but not limited to population pressures than if we had heeded the warnings then and changed our direction. Some feedbacks are probably unstoppable now, no matter what we cut back.
That was primarily about the ability to provide food. The same scientists back then would have said we can't even reach this population level while eating meat.
They were correct until we advanced agricultural science and found ways to more than double our food production.
Almost like its not a population problem, its a logistics problem.
Always has been.
Hey... How dare you bring logic into my eco-fashy views of "fixing" global suffering...
/s
(Also not making fun of the comment you responded to, but those that I have seen so much on reddit.)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Are these scientists with us on the room right now?
The issue with halving in that people will be left beehind alone and sad. We could just remove all humas, this way nobody is sad
Pretty sure the birth rate is plummeting. So continue doing nothing i guess.
Fucking paying money to raise a wage slave renter for the shitty bosses and landlords of the world.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I have seen that movie. It's kingsman. And the end is fabulous.
Head explosions !!
Hey it was only the rich assholes who's heads popped, everyone else just participated in a world-wide brawl for like 60 seconds so hopefully most people survived that
Halve Life 4b confirmed.
I kind of liked how they acknowledged the backwards thinking Thanos had in the new Spider-Man movie and just made it a joke.
view more: next ›