Backed on Global Gender Gap Index https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Gender_Gap_Report

Or any other gender equality index that always put India on the bottom. Very bad.

Democrats failed to solve people's issues. That's just it.

But Americans are in for a hard awakening if they think that in general Latin American population is progressive or left leaning. And that democrats have their guaranteed vote.

Each person is different, of course. And the average doesn't change any person individual values.

But on average Latin American countries tend to have overwhelming conservative cultures when compared with USA/Europe.

This doesn't negate any Latin American person who is progressive, of course. Just talking about averages and the reality that was shown by the polls.

In general Democrats, and any left leaning party, think that because they defend immigrants, immigrants will support them by default. This has been shown far from the truth. If someone have conservative values they will probably vote for a conservative party. That's just it. One person won't become progressive (as in stopping being sexist or transphobic) just because they moved from one country to another. An immigrant is a whole person with their own sets of values, both before and after they migrate, and won't be reduced to "being an immigrant" when voting, specially once they are legally settled in a place and their residence won't be at risk, they will just vote for their values. If they have conservative values they'll vote conservative if they have progressive values they'll vote progressive.

I never bought the "world biggest democracy" publicity stun. And each day it's more and more obvious that India is not a true democracy. They have always prosecuted and try to kill anyone opposing the regime, and half the population (women) don't have the same rights as men. They are one of the lowest countries in gender equality index. Without half the population it is imposible to be a democracy.

How do you do Zubat?

I can get Golbat, but Zubat is crazy.

This just reinforced my will to continue with the linux evangelization.

Where I live there's not many teslas.

But I saw one the other day and it was squeaking like a cheap plastic toy.

I wasn't going to buy one. But seeing such bad quality construction even noticable by afar, reaffirmed my choice.

We need both.

Sustainability is defined by the amount of resources that a population can take from the environment without permanently destroying it. For a bigger population that amount of resources that can be used before reaching that threshold is smaller by person.

Just imagine a tribe living of a fruit tree that gives 10 apples a year. Maybe a tribe of 10 individuals can live of that tree but a tribe. But what happen when the tribe grows and suddenly there's 100 individuals trying to live of a 10 apple tree? It's illogical to take population out of the equation, because it's one of the biggest factors, the second biggest factor is quality of life (how many apples we eat a year), and the only factor that you are considering relevant is the one with the smallest impact that is how efficiently we recollect our apples. That last factor is the one with the smallest impact in the whole equation, and it's the only you seem to consider to solve our problem. We, of course, need to be efficient because it cost nothing, but efficiency by itself is not solving the whole problem.

Your own equation and your own logic is supporting my argument that we NEED to reduce population.

The only thing left against it is the dogma.

Gender is a social construct that is, gladly, starting to fail.

I hope that in some years people would stop refering to having any gender, and they'll just have the social behavior they'd like best when they like it best. And will only discuss their sex when it's medically relevant.

Of course.

But the ideal course of action would be to also limit population worldwide.

So each human have a bigger pollution/resource consumption quota, thus being able to live a better life.

I think quality of life is going to decline worldwide because overpopulation (it probably already started in some countries) and the only government regulation that could prevent that is a regulation on the number of population.

I suppose a population could try to genocide another population without the government support.

If you want a car, a car has to be made. If you want to drive, energy needs to me used.

There's a limited amount of damage reduction that can be done with a change in the economical system.

And I'm for ending capitalism. But it would be naive to thing that without capitalism everything will be fixed. Some things will be better, but most bad things will remain a problem.

No matter what economic system you try to make. There's no place in the world for 8 billion cars. And I use car a an example, but every item or service we use needs some resources. Even if we are top efficient about how we made them... It's still not enough with 8 billion people wanting the same.

My only social media is lemmy and Mastodon.

Overpopulation was a big issue on the left agenda in the late 90 early 00's.

It just shifted away in favour of glorification of poverty.

I suppose it's easier to tell people that showering with cold water is the best instead of putting up the work so everyone can have hot water.

You are making my point.

People pollute.

That sustainable level that you talk about is primitivism or utopia. I don't want either.

Only solution is LESS people.

Why people have such a hard time understanding that we cannot grow infinitely (in numbers) in a world of limited resources?

I know, that the core of this is the dogma. The left removed the overpopulation problem of their dogma decades ago to gain support on certain communities and now we are paying with lots of people actively supporting the destruction of our planet and our quality of life just to squeeze a few more votes

But I don't buy dogmas. I think by myself. And I see that with that many people there's not any economical system that could work to provide a good life to every human on earth, it's impossible, there are not enough resources.

Edit: big oil wants people to feel guilty for wanting to live good. That is what people who supports uncontrolled overbreeding are, consciously or not, defending. I support that people should be able to live good, and consume without feeling guilt. Again, only way to do that is if we had less people around.

Companies supply products to people.

If there were not 8 billion people buying shit and going places the stroke of that CEO won't do as much damage.

Also if 8 billion people want a car to go on vacation to the beach... it doesn't matter if the pen of the car manufacturing company belong to a CEO or a People's Delegate, world is going to shit regardless.

You haven't been looking then.

I've spent quite a lot of time of my live trying to end capitalism.

Every company have always oversell their own products. This is not new.

Coca Cola is also just a carbonated sweet drink and it's being sold as happiness, socialization and the meaning of Christmas in a bottle.

Companies oversell, it's called marketing. It's shit practice but it's not nothing new.

That does not make the technology worse (or better). Current AI technology has its uses. With a big problem in how resource hungry it is. But it's fairly useful.

To be fair, he had won before that.

He won because people who used to vote democrat didn't vote. And people didn't stay home because the moron got shot and managed to get a cool photo. People stayed home because the Democratic party wasn't protecting their interest so they didn't vote for them.

You could buy from other company. But if you are buying the same product the pollution fingerprint would be similar on most cases.

You could just not buy the products. But if you buy things is to improve your quality of life.

So the best course of action is not to make people have less quality of life. Instead push for less people on the planet so they can afford more pollution per person.

People having 6 children that pollute their whole lives on a overpopulated earth.

"How could insert external factor to avoid personal responsibility do this to me?"

The most polluting thing a human could do is having children.

What make zero sense?

We already have open source LLM models, why would we not have them in the future.

What make zero sense is that a big chunk of the progressive movement have fall into primitivism. That makes me sad. Because the sole thing that have been proved to always improve human life is the technological advancement.