3 ms·
Of course it is. You can immediately and permanently eliminate all of your CO2 production going forward. That's a big help to the world, not very useful for you
by jellicle 8y ago
Of course it is. You can immediately and permanently eliminate all of your CO2 production going forward. That's a big help to the world, not very useful for yourself though.
Obviously if we eliminate humanity we also eliminate humanity's impact on the world. You can also get rid of all bugs in your code by deleting the code. That is the exact definition of throwing the baby out with the bathwater though. We're looking for ways to eliminate humanity's impact without eliminating humanity.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- throwaway5752 8y agoI hate to do this, but apparently you didn't understand what was quoted: "One fewer child" So instead of 3, have 2. If you were so inclined to have a vasectomy or tubal ligation after a 3rd child, it would help the overall situation. It's about lowering the growth rate in human population. Similarly, your analogy to code is incorrect. It's about eliminating new bugs but reducing the number of commits.
- jelliclesfarm 8y agoIn 1600s, the population of the world was a little more than half a billion.[1] We predict 10 billion by 2050. We certainly can work towards reducing our population. Starting with 1/2 surviving child per person. It is important that it can’t be bought or sold in order to maintain diversity of human genetic code. We could also likely become part AI or part synthetic instead of organic to deal with a different planet. But I am treading sci fi here. [1]http://www.ecology.com/population-estimates-year-2050/ http://www.ecology.com/population-estimates-year-2050/ P.S. nice handle!!