Hmm. That doesn’t very neatly explain the ones that pop up in places where it’s impossible to die.

I also just jumped onto Linux gaming on Mint. Mine is a slightly underpowered laptop, but so far it can run everything in my Steam library (which is a bit dated at this point) with no problem at all.

Look at moneybags over here being able to afford eggs.

Voice to text -> AI expansion -> Character Encoding -> Character Decoding -> AI summarization -> Text to voice

We should’ve just stuck with voice calls.

Indeed. Any company can claim to own anything. The question is whether or not it’s lucrative enough to do so.

Any energy source is going to be able to have a price tag and a logo slapped on it as long as energy generation requires infrastructure and capitalism is a thing. Wind, solar, and tidal are great; we desperately need more of them as part of our energy strategy. But they can also have a price tag and a logo. In fact, home solar has become quite a lucrative…well, not exactly scam, but “bad deal” in my area.

And fusion will have to be here, too, to fill the gaps that wind, solar, and tidal leave; at least for now. There’s no “forever” answer here, only some that’ll last longer than others.

Cool. I can’t wait for my immunocompromised friend to die of a preventable disease that we had eradicated in the US until this year.

He doesn’t deserve “cooler.” How about the Secretary of Infection?

That’s just how bad people who don’t pay their workers are.

I’m aware of the feature, it’s been around since before I left. I’m saying that it looks functionally like they coded it to be nothing more than a subreddit named for you, in which you’re the only one allowed to post. They may have put some sort of flashy nonsense over the top of it, but that’s pretty much what it is.

“Only those evil live to see their own likeness in stone.”

It’s not illegal as long as you’re not trying to get it out of circulation, advertise, or pass off one denomination as another. So deface away.

(note: I am not a lawyer, do not believe some random person on the internet)

This is actually a feature in Reddit for those unaware.

It looks to me like that’s functionally just posting in a subreddit created with your name, in which you’re the only one allowed to post. So creating a community on Lemmy with your name and you as the only authorized poster would serve the same function.

The best explanation I’ve heard is that Game Freak just flat out refuses to ever hire new people.

Yeah sorry, this meme struck me as very steeped in current American politics (not sure if this same nonsense is happening elsewhere) so I didn’t think about other constitutions.

“We the people…”

Hmm. Maybe. Though then you start pushing that maternal mortality number up; and while, of course they don’t actually care about the lives of these people, they’d probably care that they’re depleting their “breeding stock” (ew).

I’m still gobsmacked by that number, though. 800 million births per year. That’s half all childbearing women pregnant every year; one thing I didn’t think about earlier is, with recovery time, that means that literally every woman would have to be pregnant every other year.

That would utterly torpedo our economy. We’d be basically losing a quarter of the workforce, all at once, and we’d never get them back.

See, I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he meant economic growth (though that sort of requires a commensurate birth rate growth, but we can leave that aside for now), but this kind of makes that feel like an unmerited concession.

I think they meant the economy, not population,

About halfway through this research bender, I realized that. But I was having too much fun to stop. I justified it with–there’s really no way to sustain 10% annual economic growth without a 10% annual birth rate. You just have to have those workers, homeowners, economic entities, businesspeople, etc. being born and joining the economy.

but still, quality comment right here.

People who don’t do math are doomed to talk nonsense. And you just used math to showcase the stupidity. Bravo, sir.

You’re very kind. Thank you.

One of my pet peeves is all the people concerned about the birth rate.

We are at a time in the history of the planet where there have never existed as many homo sapiens as there are today, and that record will get broken every day for the next 20-50 years.

That’s part and parcel with our remarkably low death rate, too. In fact, our death rate is so low that our replacement rate could actually go below 2 and the population would still keep growing for a few years. That’s unprecedented through human history.

Of all the times to want a higher birth rate since we have existed as a species, this just ain’t the time where it makes any kind of logical sense.

It definitely isn’t our biggest problem as a species. Either way, honestly; we don’t need to try to make it bigger or smaller.

The highest population growth rate in recorded human history was sometime between 1965 and 1970, when the population was growing at about 2.1% annually. It’s down around 1.1% now. 10% hasn’t been realistic since we went from 10 humans to 11 humans.

(Note: I go on research benders. This particular rabbit hole (pun intended) became really interesting from a terrifying sci-fi perspective; kind of like a reverse Children of Men. As I wrote it up, it started to feel like an apocalyptic xkcd What If.)

So, think about the sheer numbers–for a 10% growth rate, we’d need more than eight hundred million births per year. There are only 1.9 billion women of childbearing age on Earth, which means that a little under half of every woman between 15 and 49 would need to be pregnant every single year in order to make that target (a little more than that to account for women who aren’t able to be pregnant for whatever reason, a little less than that to account for multiple births, let’s just say those will wash out).

Let’s imagine that this happened this year. Right now, we have about 132 million births annually. That would mean that we’d need about seven times the number of maternity wards, fully staffed. Five years after this unprecedented baby boom, we’d need to begin increasing the number of classrooms worldwide by a factor of 7 as well, which would mean that seven times the number of college students would have to go into education this year. We’d need to massively ramp up food production, probably starting sometime in the late 90s. We’d need to massively scale up infrastructure and housing on a Chinese scale. In 2050, our annual birth rate would equal our 2025 population, meaning we’d be adding an additional everyone who’s here right now every single year.

Interestingly, this would cause a precipitous and sustained spike in our death rate, since 0.2% of women worldwide die during childbirth. This means 1.6 million women dying in childbirth every year between 2025 and 2040 (which almost exactly balances out the number of women coming to childbearing age during those years to replace them), or the first couple months of COVID happening perpetually, but for women in childbearing. Every woman would have, on average, seventeen children by age 49, and if you know 33 women under the age of 49, one of them will die in childbirth.

In 2040, we’d have to start ramping up production again as the ten percent growth rate would begin forcing (because that’s obviously the only way for it to work) half of the 400 million women born in 2025 to start having their own children. Fifteen years later, do it again. Fifteen years later, do it one more time.

But you can probably stop worrying about it by that point. Studies are incredibly mixed on the total carrying capacity of Earth, ranging from 2 billion to 1.024 trillion, but a 10% growth rate would get us to even the most gigantic estimates within 50 years.

At some point, the pendulum begins swinging the other way; whether due to famine, water shortages, pandemics, climate change, or any number of other factors, there will be a huge increase to the global death rate once again. Our population would stabilize at our global carrying capacity; and from that point on, Earth’s line can never go up again without the line going down first.

It’s so patently ludicrous. Just total nonsense.

Edit 1: About halfway through this research bender, I realized that he was probably talking about the economy, not population. But I was having too much fun to stop. I justified it with the fact that there’s really no way to sustain 10% annual economic growth without a 10% annual birth rate. You just have to have those workers, homeowners, economic entities, businesspeople, etc. being born and joining the economy.

But then the OP pointed me toward the actual quote, which honestly makes it sound like he really was talking about population.

Edit 2: Also, this wouldn’t solve any economic problems! In fact, it would cause more. Half all childbearing women pregnant every year, with recovery time, that means that literally every woman would have to be pregnant every other year.

That would utterly torpedo our economy. We’d be basically losing a quarter of the workforce, all at once, and we’d never get them back.