4 ms·

It's not better than total extinction for those who die in the war. Also, how do you know it is never considered among the solutions?

• golergka 9y ago
  > It's not better than total extinction for those who die in the war. But it's better totally. > Also, how do you know it is never considered among the solutions? Never seen it discussed.
  • mac01021 9y ago
    Say we want to reduce our emissions 1/10 of their current rate. This would not be enough for long term climate stability but, if we did it soon, would greatly push back our deadline on elimination the other 10% to avert the bulk of the forecasted catastrophe. There are two ways to reduce humanity's rate of CO2 emissions: 1. Reduce the number of people emitting CO2. 2. Reduce the amount of CO2 that each person emits. You're complaining that noone ever considers option 1 which, as an approach to our desired 90% reduction in emissions requires that we kill off 90% of the world's population? Even for those lucky enough to be among the surviving 10%, fallout from the war and the loss of the other 90% will constitute a tremendous cost in terms of their standard of living. And it won't leave those survivors in a great position to figure out the (still necessary) elimination of their remaining emissions rate. I, for one, am unlikely to be in the 10%, and hope this approach is dismissed by those with the power to enact it.
  • anigbrowl 9y ago
    It's frequently discussed, just not as a solution to this particular problem.