5 ms·

I know I’ll be bashed for this, but: create fewer humans. Isn’t it obvious by now that population increase is a big part of the problem? Edit: I am not thinkin

by drclau 7y ago

I know I’ll be bashed for this, but: create fewer humans. Isn’t it obvious by now that population increase is a big part of the problem? Edit: I am not thinking of the direct CO2 emissions caused by breathing. It’s all the habitat destruction done for each of us and by each of us, the pollution in various forms and so on. Can we really compensate for this by becoming more efficient? Can we become so efficient to handle a few more billion people? Where is the limit?

ars 7y ago
A: No that's not obvious at all. B: Even if everyone cut their birth rate instantly it would be 100 years before there would be much change. (Think about how long people live and the birthrate is never going to actually be zero.) So even if that was the problem, which it's not, it's not solvable by any method that has to do with reducing the number of humans. Only a new energy source can solve this, which makes population increase a completely pointless thing to discuss.
8draco8 7y ago
Whole village in South America or Africa will produce less pollution than one businessman with a private jet.
- fifnir 7y ago
  So by far the best way for the businessman to reduce their footprint is to not have more private-jet-flying-children
  - 8draco8 7y ago
    No, just stop flying private jets. Try to do online meetings and if you really need to be somewhere use commercial aircraft for travel to lower your footprint. It's easy. This hypothetical businessman can lower his footprint to level of South American villager with some effort and planning. As for the children of wealthy people I would rather have a millionaire with 10 kids which can receive proper health care and education (and with a bit of luck share their wealth with less fortunate people) than 10 kids living in poverty.

5 ms·

I know I’ll be bashed for this, but: create fewer humans. Isn’t it obvious by now that population increase is a big part of the problem? Edit: I am not thinkin

by drclau 7y ago

ars 7y ago
A: No that's not obvious at all. B: Even if everyone cut their birth rate instantly it would be 100 years before there would be much change. (Think about how long people live and the birthrate is never going to actually be zero.) So even if that was the problem, which it's not, it's not solvable by any method that has to do with reducing the number of humans. Only a new energy source can solve this, which makes population increase a completely pointless thing to discuss.
8draco8 7y ago
Whole village in South America or Africa will produce less pollution than one businessman with a private jet.
- fifnir 7y ago
  So by far the best way for the businessman to reduce their footprint is to not have more private-jet-flying-children
  - 8draco8 7y ago
    No, just stop flying private jets. Try to do online meetings and if you really need to be somewhere use commercial aircraft for travel to lower your footprint. It's easy. This hypothetical businessman can lower his footprint to level of South American villager with some effort and planning. As for the children of wealthy people I would rather have a millionaire with 10 kids which can receive proper health care and education (and with a bit of luck share their wealth with less fortunate people) than 10 kids living in poverty.