• LavaPlanet@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 hours ago

    It’s terrifying how many comments seems to be supporting this terrifying suggestion as a viable option. For anyone wondering. Thing is, if a brain is dead, the body starts to rot, a lot of the functions your brain does, keep the body not rotting. When your brain dies and your body starts rotting, medicine can hit your corpse with some hard drugs to delay the rot a little, but they’re not compatible with growing a fertilised egg to maturity. What the absolute fuck.

  • Dingleberrydipndots@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    20 hours ago

    So, how is this a capitalism issue?

    Yall just come up with any crap and blame capitalism. I know yall dont want to hear this, but thats why things are as good as theg are. And things are better than they have ever been in history. More people have access to modern medicine than ever, we send mercy ships around the world to provide Healthcare to the poorest. Christians.

    Anyway… things are no where near perfect, and they never will he because we are imperfect humans. Anyhoo…

    • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      16 hours ago

      We’re looking at between 200 million and 2 billion dead over the next 20 years due to climate collapse. Things are better than they ever have been? My brother in Christ, we are on the eve of what future historians will call “The Great Hunger.”

      • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        I would still take this over living in a shit hut during the Dark Ages. Or dying from a small infection because no one knows what germ theory is. Or watching 6 year old girls getting sold for marriage to old men. Or not being able to read, nor even knowing anyone who can. Or live in a world without anti-parasitic drugs.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          14 hours ago

          Capitalism is when the scientific method exists and human knowledge has accumulated after all

          The Wealth of Nations literally just says “Let Newton do it lol” that’s it, that’s the whole book

    • cv_octavio@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      This is sort or a Frank Herbert trope actually. You might be thinking of Hellstrom’s Hive, in particular “reproductive stumps”.

      As Gandalf said, it is grim reading.

    • tuff_wizard@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      capitalism, or at least the flavour we enjoy in “the west”, needs continued increases in profit and growth or baby Jesus will cry or something.

      The easiest way to do that is by increasing population. Most of the countries that have actually benefited from capitalism over the last 80 years are now seeing declining populations (or at least working populations) as the desperation to funnel wealth upwards makes the idea of starting a family unpalatable.

      This is why “wealthy” capitalist counties are all importing migrants at unprecedented rates. However this upsets the nationalism that goes hand in hand with exploitative capitalism as they don’t want to “lose their country” to the very people propping it up.

      The next logical step is brain dead baby makers.

      • tornavish@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        It’s a weak joke. They should have mentioned selling the womb, which is definitely not implied. Low effort tankie bs

      • MourningDove@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        And what do you think socialism relies on? Same goes for Communism. None of them exist without a reliably replenishing population.

        • tuff_wizard@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Not really. Without the need for upward trending squiggly lines to justify CEO’s next pay increase or predatory institutions looking to buy up any business that doesn’t show growth every quarter and break it up for parts companies can quite easily scale back when demand shrinks.

          It’s unthinkable to us because we pray at the alter of the shareholder but there are millions of small businesses that maintain steady profitability (with little growth) over the life of the owner. Or are even scaled back when needed (market issues, owner lifestyle changes) and then scaled up again when it is desirable.

          A business that is allowed to have other goals other than increased profit growth no matter what can provide jobs, goods and still a regular profit in all types of markets. If the population shrinks then the company shrinks. And why shouldn’t it? There are less people to sell too and less people looking for employment.

        • cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          Are you fucking high?

          Because I’m tripping on three solid hits of acid and 300mg of THC trying to be as baroquely fucking stupid as that statement.

          Tell me what you’re high on. I want to be a winner.

    • redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      I think the connection they’re going for is this is the kind of hair brained distopian bullshit that eventually comes trying to achieve "infinite growth"in a finite world.

      • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Well it’s not like socialist countries don’t need growth to achieve their goals and that growth needs new workers

        • tuff_wizard@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          I think the implication is that in a socialist/communist utopia there would be no need for continual growth. their only goals would be to make their populations comfortable and I guess further the arts/technology.

          Obviously one or two non capitalist countries need to try and grow at the same rate as their capitalist neighbours so they can try and fend off the “democracy” that capitalist countries so often like to bestow on non-capitalist and/or oilfield owning countries.

          How those types of societies would operate when not trying to compete with aggressive capitalism is unknown. No doubt human nature would take its course and we’d be back here in 50 years or so.

            • tuff_wizard@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              In the meanwhile things are getting consistently shittier under capitalism and someone has suggested using brain dead woman as incubators to combat the collapse we’re looking at now that there are no new countries to exploit.

              Why do you think we’re so desperate to get to space now? Capitalism needs growth.

              You can support that system or you can try to work for a new one.

              • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                The new one, as it exists right now, looks pretty horrid too. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to hear this story from the supposedly socialist China.

                And I don’t think some loon suggesting this means much. Anyone can suggest anything. This made news because of how horrible the suggestion was and how outraged people got over it.

                • tuff_wizard@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Supposedly socialist is exactly right, but we’re not here to split hairs about the exact name of the ideal governing/economic style.

                  In a very dumbed down way socialism/communism is meant to value the goals of the many over the few and capitalism is touted as the bastion for individual freedom. But there is no end to individuals getting royally fucked, often in legal and yet unfair ways in capitalistic countries all for the sake of a few percentage points on a quarterly report.

                  Most people who are capitalism detractors don’t want follow in china or Russia’s footsteps. We just want a system that values people more than money.

      • tornavish@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        I can see China inducing comas in Uyghur women and forcing them to be incubators for the billionaires in the Chinese Capitalist Party who don’t want to deal with pregnancy.

        • twopi@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          If the Chinese do it is double plus ungood but if the west does it, it is by definition, double plus good. Thank you fellow pleb for teaching me this understanding. I’m double plus looking forward to the 2 minutes of hate this morning.

            • twopi@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              It’s Newspeak from Orwell’s 1984:

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak#Prefixes

              It’s purposefully stupid.

              I personally use it to highlight issues on China. It seems to me that, like the Conservative/Liberal Party divide, the The West/China divide is more a “it’s good if my side does it but bad when my opponent does it”.

              Use of Newspeak high lights this obserdity by replacing good with good and bad with ungood (i.e. not-good or opposite of good)

                • twopi@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  That’s my point though. It isn’t good if anyone does it. Doesn’t matter the country, party of political ideology.

                  Why be upset at China if we’re doing it as well? At least we have control over our laws, not China’s.

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Yes, sure, and cannibalism solves overpopulation and starvation in one easy step…

    Doesn’t make it a good idea.

  • Gladaed@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    24 hours ago

    TBf this might be a great idea. This protects wanting mothers from the harm done by pregnancy. Why is this bad? It’s weird. Sure. And I guess you might claim benefit from being lugged around by your mother while you can start to feel and hear people.

  • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Honestly don’t have a problem with this if there was prior consent in a living will. I could see a lot of people willing to sign up for this.

    • Jankatarch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Honestly main unethical part is that there are the alternatives “making it cheaper to raise children” or “needing less households where both parents have to work full-time” yet we debate this.