You must log in or # to comment.
Pokemon Smash
Did you know that Vaporeon…
Pokémon Revolution
Pokémon Ovulation
I hope they release Pokemon guillotine next
Nintendo is not going to like what I do next…
Hmmm, this has potential to make the upcoming French Revolution palworld expansion amusing in court.
Is pokemon sleepy real thing?
Yeah, Pokemon Sleep is a phone app
Pikachu, I fuck you!
It’s only a problem for our species. And, only for future potential members of our species. The declining birth rate isn’t going to hurt anyone alive today. Not even billionaires, not in any way that matters.
Overall, the Earth would be much happier and peaceful without us. We’re not special, we’re just selfish.
Finally, probably, even in the worst human-caused catastrophe, at least some pockets of humanity would survive. Again, though, not that it really matters.
TLDR; Don’t worry about it. It’s no one’s problem to solve. We didn’t ask to be born, and none of us owe our species anything.
The declining birth rate isn’t going to hurt anyone alive today.
Having a top heavy age demographic means less tax revenue will be split between more required services. There will also be fewer labourers with more labour requirements. The only ones it won’t hurt are the billionaires.
It’s probably a good thing in the long run that human population is stabilising, but it’s going to be problematic until we get to that stable state.
The declining birthrate is a feature, not a problem to be solved. We do not need more people. Capitalism needs more people. We don’t.
I mean, it absolutely can become a problem if an entire population turns elderly and Theres no young people to take over businesses, care for the elderly, maintain critical infrastructure.
Say what you want about the capitalist ideals that hold this time important,if the birthrate hit 0% we would be facing societal collapse
if the birthrate hit 0% we would be facing societal collapse
Bit strawmanny that. Nobody considers 0% a reasonable target.
Just an extreme example, but there are actual statistics out there I cant remember where a bunch of people much smarter than me figured out the “this is an emergency” percentage,
So what? If people decide we don’t need any more people then we surely don’t need society.
I just hope we remember to shut the lights off when we leave.
I mean… That societal collapse may be necessary at some point sooner rather than later- we need to downsize, we can chose to do it on our own terms or just run out the clock and smash into a brick wall. Maybe it’s not a bad thing.
I’m semi serious. This isn’t working out. I don’t think so, and many with me don’t think so. We can’t keep doing things just because the system demands it, we should be doing what we decide is good and necessary first and then work towards those goals, instead of just doing more of everything and hope that it will magically turn out for the best.
I am aware of the problem space here and the high cost and risk of dramatically changing course and our way of governing societies, but if we don’t, those problems will not be solved or diminish and we’ll have to deal with it anyway. Capitalism will not save us.
We do not need more people. Capitalism needs more people. We don’t.
Weird issue to pin on capitalism: seems more of an economic growth issue regardless of type. From Bars, Pride and dating apps: How China is closing down its LGBT+ spaces
At the same time, China’s population growth and economy are slowing. “The current population growth couldn’t support economic growth,” explains Hongwei, meaning there has been a push to encourage heterosexual couples to have larger families to ensure an abundant future workforce.
Hence, the Chinese crackdown on LGBT+.
The ban on Grindr could be put down to China’s wider dislike of Western apps, which are often accused of being vehicles for foreign influence. But removing Blued and Finka, which were both developed in China, represents a “seismic change in government attitudes towards homegrown LGBT apps”, says Hongwei.
Before targeting Blued and Finka, the Chinese authorities led a campaign against authors of the “Boy’s Love”, or Danmei, same-sex romance stories, some of which feature explicit love scenes between men.
Several Danmei writers, most of whom are female, have reported being arrested and questioned by the authorities, and in recent months two major Danmei sites have either shut down, or drastically reduced and toned down their content.
Today, “officially, those Three No’s are still in place, but we are seeing evidence that the space for LGBT+ communities is starting to shrink”, says Marc Lanteigne, associate professor of political science at the Arctic University of Norway.
Shanghai Pride shut down in 2020, and one year later the government shut down student LGBT+ accounts for “violating internet regulations”. Grindr disappeared in 2022, and in 2023 the Beijing LGBT Centre closed its doors after 15 years.
In June 2024, the Roxie, Shanghai’s last officially lesbian bar, was forced to close “under pressure from the authorities".
“The authorities have been slowly chipping away at those spaces that were open previously,” says Hildebrandt.
With the closure of so many physical spaces, online networks had become “really the only places in which many members of the LGBT+ community could express their sexuality openly” he adds.
But in contemporary Chinese politics, “the Maoist principles about equality have more to do with uniformity,” says Hildebrandt. “You gain equality by being more like everybody else. You don’t gain equality by being diverse.”
In a bid to create greater conformity within the population, “there has been a push in China to reinforce traditional family values and, in some cases, traditional masculine values,” adds Lanteigne.
Since the Covid pandemic, “the Chinese government has endorsed nationalist discourse and LGBT culture is seen as very politicised siding with Western ideologies”, says Hongwei.
“There’s the impression that LGBTQ communities are by default connected to the West and could be seen as destabilising forces,” adds Lanteigne.
Broader political and social forces may be at work, but the result is a real loss of liberty for gay and queer people in China. Hildebrandt says: “There is a real sense that it’s become a more difficult environment to be openly gay."
China is a capitalist society lmfao
Implies Capitalism is not at fault, proceeds to outline precisely why State Capitalism is melting down over declining birthrate. This comment is so ironic it cured my anemia.
If every economy is capitalist no matter degree of government planning, regulation, & control, then by your standard non-capitalist economies are a myth.
Demand for population growth is a general problem of economic growth rather than type of economic system. Even before capitalism, subsistence farmers would bear more children for the additional labor.
Central planning economies can be as or more destructive than the more capitalist ones: type of economy seems to have little bearing there, too. The USSR aggressively industrialized & would consistently pursue economic growth (to raise standards of living). It comes up in the Soviet constitution of 1977:
- labor, free from exploitation, as the source of growth
- continuous improvement of their living standards (art. 39)
- steady growth of the productive forces (art. 40).
Despite their command economy, their pollution was proportionately worse than the US’s
Total emissions in the USSR in 1988 were about 79% of the US total. Considering that the Soviet GNP was only some 54% of that of the USA, this means that the Soviet Union generated 1.5 times more pollution than the USA per unit of GNP.
Their planners considered pollution control
unnecessary hindrance to economic development and industrialization
and
By the 1990s, 40% of Russia’s territory began demonstrating symptoms of significant ecological stress, largely due to a diverse number of environmental issues, including deforestation, energy irresponsibility, pollution, and nuclear waste.
And this generously glosses over the extent of water contamination, hazardous dumping of toxic & nuclear waste into oceans, etc.
The dependence on labor, capacity for environmental destruction, and demand for economic growth are not particular to any type of economy: they’re general.
China isn’t a communist country really. A state capitalist country would be better way to describe it, maybe. They participate in the markets and allow private ownership of companies. For instance BYD the fast coming EV manufacturer isn’t majority owned by their federal government, but is subsidized by it.
People can argue if it is or isn’t capitalism, but in the end that doesn’t say communism. I’m no expert but I’d say maybe a social programs injected into a authoritarian capitalistic state.
Ehh, the capitalist class doesn’t call the shots in China though, the party does. And their private corporations don’t simply have shareholders, it has party representation embedded in the control structure making “ownership” moot because ultimately the party can veto or seize production at moments notice.
That being said, when Xi starts claiming socialism is inevitable, he does so to delay it’s implementation.
Yeah companies like BYD have investors like Berkshire and Blackrock but the key is Wang Chuanfu who is in the party, and is the CEO and largest owner apparently. So he gets a lot of say in making himself richer apparently. Sounds like what Musk would have wanted for Tesla if he could have got MAGA off the EV hate
Pokémon Universal Basic Income?!
Pokémon Healthcare for All
I didn’t fuck my Vaporeon. I didn’t cum on my Vaporeon. I didn’t put my dick anywhere near my Vaporeon. I’ve never done anything weird with my Eveelutions. I promised myself I wasn’t going to make apology videos after last years thing so I’m just trying to be as short and honest with this as possible.
My “I didn’t fuck my Vaporeon” T-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by the T-shirt.
That’s silly. Can’t they read?
I mean. If you stop and think about it. Why would someone that fucked their vaporeon wear a shirt that said they didn’t fuck their vaporeon? It makes no sense!
“We’re releasing a Vaporion that can get pregnant”
You cat the outer shell, and find a Chinese sweatshop worker inside
Fuck Pokémon.
Interpret that how you wish, lol
Declining birthrates will save the planet. There’s already more people than we can sustainability support.
We CAN sustain everybody we have now. It’s just billionaires have decided it’s more profitable to let a huge section of society suffer. The more suffering for us, the more profit for them. But you have to balance it, so it doesn’t lead to revolt.
Thats what ends suffering. Not decreased birthrates, but instead death and revolt of those holding back food and shelter from those that need it, so they can raise prices on unsold units.
We could feed everyone now, but not sustainably. To produce the amount of food we do now, we need fertilizers made from limited resources like oil and pesticides/fungicides that destroy the ecosystem. If the current agriculture section of the world completely moved to sustainable practices next year there wouldn’t be enough food to support half of the human population.
Not so sure, we are pulling resources out of the earth at a ridiculous rate. Even with green energy we are still reliant on mining for everything. Goods, fertilizer, the stuff for solar panels. We’re going to run out of easy to access stuff sooner or later.
So you’re saying mine the moon?
Degrowth is only an option after the dismantling Capitalism. We are pulling unreasonable and unsustainable amounts of resources from the earth. This should be ended but that cannot be done while those resources are owned by capitalists who must by the nature of capitalism expand that extraction infinitely. If we want sustainability through the reduction of wasteful and unnecessary use of resources we need a system that is not predicated on infinite growth in a finite system. We can sustain ourselves and the environment, just not like this.
We can sustain everybody on Earth right now if we all eat beans and rice, give up all meat, stop plane travel, and limit your commutes to ones you can do without a personal car. Even if we get rid of billionaires, the rest of western life is unsustainable at this population.
If you are reading this message on a smart phone, it’s already too late, you don’t meet this criteria. The only solution for us to sustain your lifestyle is to reduce the population.
That’s all hard to do when billionaires are the ones structuring society. The point is we don’t get to choose corrective societal actions unless it is an exercise of individual privilege. I would have loved to take the train to visit relatives, but it literally is not an option.
We CAN sustain everybody we have now.
Even if we could (which I doubt) is it even worth it living on a planet that’s this crowded?
Yes? Have you ever been to Tokyo, Shanghai, any of the like 100 cities >10m in China?
They’re quite nice.
That depends where you live. I wouldn’t want to live in India, which is crowded as hell. But Half of Canada is basically empty. Half of Australia is basically empty. Some of the states in the USA are basically empty. The majority of russia is empty.
Space isn’t the issue.
Those places are empty because it is not easy to live there. And we should leave those places alone anyway.
Australia and Canada are most uninhabited because there’s a lot of uninhabitable land. I do agree that a lot of land use isn’t efficient, but there is also generally a reason people don’t live in central Australia.
The world really is not all that crowded, it only feels that way because our land use is inefficient
More scientists and inventors, more philosophers and artists, more people that share your niche hobby…
The only people who have a problem with that, are hipsters or just like dieing a preventable death.
There’s actually more than enough resources to go around, but enormous amounts are lost to waste, corruption, inequality and greed. The world isn’t actually overpopulated, but over-urbanized. If it was made more feasible for people to live in the districts, more decentralised and with less waste of resources, human society would look very different.
We produce enough food now, but not sustainably. Fertilizers and pesticides are destroying ecosystems.
Why that direction? Intuitively I’d imagine stuffing the humans into cities would allow more mass transit, fewer cars, more economies of scale, and more area left over for nature. So more like Singapore, less like Texas.
Has anyone ever done scientific research on this question?
We could also all sleep together in big rooms, like stadiums, to save heat and power elsewhere. And it won’t turn into that orgy scene at the end of that Matrix movie, not unless Carol wants it to.
We don’t have to invite Carol.
Urban centers have less waste or CO2 per capita than their rural or suburban counterparts. The problem is our pursuit of ever increasing profits is extremely wasteful but is currently how states gain influence.
“In my perfect ideal world, that we have no path to achieving, we could sustain our large population indefinitely.”
It looks like the world can support the current population. Barely.
But yeah, low birth rate is not something that must be solved right now. And it will solve itself eventually. We should be working into making people comfortable, but if people think their current situation isn’t good enough to have children, just shut the fuck up and let them be.
Hard to prove, but even the idea that the world can barely support the current population is likely just propaganda trying to reinforce a scarcity mindset.
We could probably pack nearly everyone in the entire world in to an area the size of the United Kingdom, and most could be living better lives than they do now. Population Density comparable to New York City would get you around 7 billion people. Obviously, we can do better than that, but just trying to put it into perspective.
Even for agriculture, you could support the current population with what we’ve got and a lot more if that was your priority. There are dramatic gains to be made by reducing or eliminating meat and unless we made some new unfortunate discoveries that would 100% get you there, but you might not even have to. We’re strong into theory territory and might have to focus on prioritizing fertile land for agriculture but having everyone in the world eat like an average american would likely be doable at current levels if we actually wanted to prioritize that.
Kill* about 15 billionaires and suddenly we can support a lot more people with the same resources.
*Other options available
“But line must go up.”
Not actually true, unless your means of supporting people includes provisions for the extravagances of carbon-based energy and huge amounts of inefficiency everywhere in the supply chain.
If we want to carry on with capitalism as we know it now, yes. And you know it’s going to be the elderly, sick, disabled, among the working class population that need to go first. You know, those who can’t be forced to work. It’s not the poor working class populations who wealthy right-wing policy makers are asking to have more babies.
The world is already on track for around 10 billion people anyway, because there are already enough young people in developing nations who we expect to have families of their own in the next few decades.
So good thing we could carry that many people sustainably if we get our shit together.
Not that I’m against Pokemon inspired sexy times between consenting adults.
I know that you are just parroting dangerous ideas, but you need to stop that
While they may be factually incorrect, humanity still sucks so bad with all the ecological ruin they’ve caused & species they’ve wiped out that exterminating them completely would bless the entire planet.
Just so you know, I reported you as you’re spreading ecofascism.
You are poisoning yourself with such ideas and thoughts. Please seek help
Just so you know, I reported you as you’re spreading ecofascism.
Seems like you reported yourself for frivolous reporting: the destructiveness of humanity is undeniable.Suggesting the complete extermination of humanity (me included) would be better for the rest of the planet is not even ecofascism. No form of government is suggested: we’d all be gone. It’s at best a selfless, magnanimous deathwish: all other life on the planet deserves better.
The ancient Mesopotamians told a myth of their gods—disturbed by the overpopulation of humanity—plotting & failing to exterminate humanity until they settled to keep them around after all. I think this made a lot of people very angry and should be widely regarded as a bad move. We probably should welcome if some alien overlords came along & completed what the ancient Mesopotamians gods didn’t finish.
Sorry, I don’t take destructive ideas seriously
Pokemon x Luigi crossover?
Shoot the oligarch pokemons?
But which Pokémon would Luigi knock boots with?
Funny thing, I had an accident with AI where when I switched to Lewd-Tan, I forgot to set my name to user. I told it I was bored, that the usual won’t work, and to just tell me something hot.
The username I forgot to delete was Leafeon.
Can confirm, it would be super-effective at getting birth rates up.
wat does this mean?
Poster got a pokemon-themed, sexual story or role-play with an AI.
No, I got treated like a pet, discovered I actually like that
