I thought it was ok. Basically left-wing hollywood throwing rocks at the right-wing big-wig corporate culture, which was admittingly quite hilarious. But, 10 mins in and I've already seen 1) Marijuana 2) LGBTQ references 3) Race/Racism points being made. I wish they also added some satire of the progressives.
I tend to think of myself as a bit of a conservative centrist, and thought it did a decent job insulting everyone. Probably the right more than the left, but that's to be expected given who made it.
I didn't find the main villain to be right wing. If anything, a BezosZuckerbergMusk conglomeration that acted pretty annoyingly progressive in mannerisms and requests.
To me the left was portrayed as social media addicted idiots, and the right as purposefully ignorant idiots(dont look up). In the end, I think someone on either side would end up offended.
That's like saying that the tendency of wolves to eat prey can't be used to describe a maximum capacity of wolves given an amount of prey. Maybe we could support more wolves if they starved a little? Or if they started eating pets in addition to wild prey? Or if they expanded their range?
Knowing the maximum capacity that our Earth seems to be capable of sustaining based on current utilization is an important number, and isn't worthy of such a short-sighted dismissal. If lifestyles do change such that the maximum capacity increases, that's a huge win to be able to track.
It's an important number.
I am not dismissing it in general.
We don't need to starve more than we have to starve now if we live less wasteful.
That said, when it comes to looking at the maximum capacity earth could sustain, it rather seems short sighted to not consider life style changes while even the article being commented is about shrinking consumption.
