this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
-23 points (7.4% liked)

conservative

1404 readers
353 users here now

A community to satirize conservtive and right-wing "ideals".

This community (now) exists as a pressure valve, a place to process through humor the often frustrating world of conservative politics. Above all, this is NOT the place for serious conservative support/viewpoints/arguments. There are other places on Lemmy for that if you desire it.

Rules:

  1. Always follow .world instance rules

  2. Parody With Purpose: This is a space for humorous takes on conservative politics. We welcome satire, but draw the line at content that promotes racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of bigotry.

  3. Memes Over Manifestos: This community focuses on humor and parody, not serious political debate. There are plenty of spaces for earnest conservative discussion, this isn’t one of them.

  4. Highlight Contradictions: Sometimes the best content points out inconsistencies and hypocrisies in conservative talking points. Creative commentary is encouraged.

  5. Public Figures Fair Game: Politicians and pundits can be satirized, but no targeting of private individuals, doxxing, or harassment.

Children of public figures under the age of 14 are also off-limits, a 16 year old has enough free agency to break with or adopt their parents views. An 8 year old kid doesn't.

  1. No News Zone: Memes only, news or other serious content should be sent to the nearest relevant comm. Meme's of current events, however, are encouraged.

  2. Clear Satire: Make your satirical intent reasonably clear. We’re here to mock bad ideas, not accidentally spread them. If you're unsure how it will be taken, feel free to DM the mod team ahead of time or explicitly tag it as satire in the body.

A note on ChadMcTruth: Chad's content is 100% satire, but his work can sometimes be hard to tell, but if he posted it be assured, its satire.

  1. Relevant Content: All posts should relate to conservative politics or ideologies in some way somewhere in your post. Either in the title or the meme itself.

For more general political memes please see !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

  1. Community Respect: Disagree with fellow members all you want, but personal attacks aren’t welcome. Save the criticism for the ideas, not each other.

  2. Moderation Discretion: Mods will use reasonable judgment in applying these rules. We’ll be fair, but firm. These kinds of comms have a tendency to get off the rails, so we might seem overzealous in moderation sometimes.

  3. For the moment, i'm allowing properly tagged NSFW content as long as its funny and relevant. Don't make me regret it.

And above all, HAVE FUN!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
cm0002@lemmy.world
-23
How Climate Alarmists' Overpopulation Obsession Curbs Prosperity (thefederalist.com)
submitted 1 year ago by eddie_of_ny@lemmy.ml to c/conservative@lemmy.world
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"Yes the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders."

Holy fuck you have misplaced priorities. And this article isn't even factually correct.

[–] eddie_of_ny@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

isn't even factually correct

Care to bring some facts to the table then?

[–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Many people today believe the world is overpopulated and that we are running out of natural resources.

the increasingly popular notion that the growing global population will eventually overutilize our planet’s finite resources.

contrary to the Malthusian claims of contemporary leftists and climate alarmists, population growth and resource scarcity do not share a causal relationship.

The entire article is based off of this idea. But it is not the main concern environmentalists have with overpopulation.

The main concern is that population is tied to greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, and damaging consumption. Every person born will lead to a lifetime's worth of greenhouse gasses, water and air pollution, and contribution towards habitat loss.

They fundamentally do not understand environmentalist concerns, that's the factual issue with the article. The rest of it is grossly misleading:

The more people there are, the more opportunities there are for education, collaboration, and innovation that can benefit everyone.

Here they try to correlate population with solutions to consumption growth.

Take sand for example. Our sand consumption is positively correlated with population growth, yet this article would have you believe the reverse. It's simply not true, more people is leading to more sand consumption, which brings habitat destruction.

the median quality of life across the globe has dramatically improved over the past few centuries, in no small part due to human ingenuity.

The quality of life for the humans in the Wall-e universe has markedly improved.

Measuring quality of life in no way measures the damage of overpopulation.

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed,

Another grossly misleading statement on the article's part. While matter can't be created or destroyed, it can be (effectively) irreparably altered such that it is not ever usable again.

He points to the Simon Abundance Index, a measure of the relationship between population growth and the abundance of 50 basic commodities, to make his case.

Then there is shit like this, comparing population to market availability. It ignores that the market is not a measure for environmental damage, or the depletion rates of resources.

Recall the 2015 Paris Climate Accords in which nearly 200 nations and the European Union nominally committed their economies to reducing dependency on fossil fuels and reducing carbon emissions while incentivizing investment in inefficient means of energy production.

This is misleading because the efficiency of green energy sources is that they don't destroy the planet. And they completely fail to understand that.

prominent Democrat politicians suggesting Americans should have fewer children are further iterations of this ethos — save the future by not building it.

Having fewer children doesn't mean there would be no future. Having fewer children is one of the easiest ways we can reduce green house gas emissions.