4 ms·

It's not surprising that people are unable to sympathize with people who they've never seen. I suggest you travel through India and you'll realize how mistaken

It's not surprising that people are unable to sympathize with people who they've never seen. I suggest you travel through India and you'll realize how mistaken you are, sometimes the carbon emission of a village with 100 members is less than a typical American household, specially now when LPG is rolling out even in the remotest and poorest families.

jjuhl 7y ago
For the record; I've travelled in India and parts of Africa. That's not the point. The point is simply biology. If we reduce our population sufficiently (by whatever means), then the effects we have on the global climate may start to wear off. This is just one example of how we are reaching a limit and our species is starting to die off as a result. Given enough such situations our species may eventually reach a sustainable level.
- inapis 7y ago
  Wiping out a 100k population does not have the same effect as wiping out a 10k population which also consumes and emits 10x. Climate change due to population is not a simple numbers reduction game.
- tobias3 7y ago
  I'm more pessimistic. People will come up with something to use up all easily available fossil fuels no matter what population size. E.g. via space tourism, the moon being the new Mount Everest. This can easily be seen by how much more CO2 each US-Amercian emits compared to every other person on earth. So your Thanos solution wouldn't even work short term. The effect also doesn't wear off until you take the CO2 out of the atomsphere and bury/solidify it, which doesn't happen organically within reasonable (for humans) time frames.
- wongarsu 7y ago
  The problem is that those who emit the most are best equipped against any ill effects. The US (and Europe) are in quite temperate climate. There will be some internal migration to the cooler regions, somewhat higher taxes to pay for sea walls, storm drains and some permamently running pumps, higher insurance premiums for many types of insurance, etc. But all those are minor inconviniences compared to what those that barely have a carbon footprint will experience. That means whatever nature "does" to kill humans and balance our carbon budget would have to kill 90% of all humans to have enough of an effect. If that's the plan then just nuking the 10% of humanity with the highest carbon emissions would be more efficient and more humane.
  - finchisko 7y ago
    I'm living in EU, and have exactly same bad feeling about pollution generated in EU or US having much more worse effect in some other part of the world. I'm trying to advocate for wanting less (stuff, travelling, ...), but it's seems only very few here care.
HillaryBriss 7y ago
So, the migration of large numbers of people from a low-energy-per-capita economy to a high-energy-per-capita economy will save lives, but also have the unintended side effect of increasing global temperatures? If we refuse to reduce our energy expenditures in the US because [stubborn reasons] ... would it be easier to solve global warming by just having everyone in the US migrate to existing more efficient, low-energy-per-capita economies?

jjuhl 7y ago

For the record; I've travelled in India and parts of Africa. That's not the point. The point is simply biology. If we reduce our population sufficiently (by whatever means), then the effects we have on the global climate may start to wear off. This is just one example of how we are reaching a limit and our species is starting to die off as a result. Given enough such situations our species may eventually reach a sustainable level.

inapis 7y ago
Wiping out a 100k population does not have the same effect as wiping out a 10k population which also consumes and emits 10x. Climate change due to population is not a simple numbers reduction game.
tobias3 7y ago
I'm more pessimistic. People will come up with something to use up all easily available fossil fuels no matter what population size. E.g. via space tourism, the moon being the new Mount Everest. This can easily be seen by how much more CO2 each US-Amercian emits compared to every other person on earth. So your Thanos solution wouldn't even work short term. The effect also doesn't wear off until you take the CO2 out of the atomsphere and bury/solidify it, which doesn't happen organically within reasonable (for humans) time frames.
wongarsu 7y ago
The problem is that those who emit the most are best equipped against any ill effects. The US (and Europe) are in quite temperate climate. There will be some internal migration to the cooler regions, somewhat higher taxes to pay for sea walls, storm drains and some permamently running pumps, higher insurance premiums for many types of insurance, etc. But all those are minor inconviniences compared to what those that barely have a carbon footprint will experience. That means whatever nature "does" to kill humans and balance our carbon budget would have to kill 90% of all humans to have enough of an effect. If that's the plan then just nuking the 10% of humanity with the highest carbon emissions would be more efficient and more humane.
- finchisko 7y ago
  I'm living in EU, and have exactly same bad feeling about pollution generated in EU or US having much more worse effect in some other part of the world. I'm trying to advocate for wanting less (stuff, travelling, ...), but it's seems only very few here care.

HillaryBriss 7y ago

So, the migration of large numbers of people from a low-energy-per-capita economy to a high-energy-per-capita economy will save lives, but also have the unintended side effect of increasing global temperatures? If we refuse to reduce our energy expenditures in the US because [stubborn reasons] ... would it be easier to solve global warming by just having everyone in the US migrate to existing more efficient, low-energy-per-capita economies?