29 ms·

A big part is our greed to procreate, take out 3/4 of humanity and climate change is solved

headmelted 5y ago
Is it though? Even if there were an event that wiped out 75% of people, it kicks the can down the road at most 30 years due to a baby boom. Refusing to solve the real problem is what got us in to this mess. It’s also utterly like us as a species to think that killing 3 out of 4 people is an easier fix than just living within our means.
- boredtofears 5y ago
  > It’s also utterly like us as a species to think that killing 3 out of 4 people is an easier fix than just living within our means. Individuals aren't really responsible for the mass amounts of pollutants put into the atmosphere the same way corporations are. In order for the human population to "live within it's means" at an impactful scale it would require a change of capitalist philosophy that quite obviously isn't going to change anytime soon. Kicking the can down the road 30 years is by far the best option we have available to us at this point (not that it will happen in my lifetime).
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    > would require a change of capitalist philosophy that quite obviously isn't going to change anytime soon. Capitalism won’t go without a fight.
  - headmelted 5y ago
    In order for the human population to "live within it's means" at an impactful scale it would require a change of capitalist philosophy that quite obviously isn't going to change anytime soon. Yes.
    - headmelted 5y ago
      To add to this, just doing away with capitalism does not solve this problem, and creates myriad others. Absolutely the scale of the problem is unprecedented though, but that message hasn’t changed in 50 years.
You-Are-Right 5y ago
You can start solving this by taking out yourself. Thanks!
fsloth 5y ago
That's horrible and would not solve the climate change.
- boredtofears 5y ago
  It would not solve climate change, but really, what's horrible about it? We live in a world of finite resources. If we, as a species, overpopulate to the point where these finite resources run dry, what are the best options?
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    Because climate change is the only reason to do something like that - we need to solve the short term issue of pollution, because in the long run (e.g. a few centuries) overpopulation is not a problem as we're going to get a population stabilization and decrease just with current trends without a need to sacrifice anything for it; and we are getting more resource efficient over time, GDP growth has now finally (unlike all history) decoupled from growth in energy use and mineral use, etc. Climate change is a problem that makes us need a rapid solution right now even if its costly and painful, general depletion of resources really isn't; if it wasn't for climate change then we could just let the replacement of oil to renewables happen "naturally" as oil prices slowly increase as the supply decreases, the usual market incentives would be enough to manage the resource allocation. Finiteness of resources is not as big of an issue as it looked in 1970s (when the original Limits to Growth study was made) - with a stable or shrinking population (current situation in developed world, soon-to-arrive globally) each person's share of physical resources is the same all the while as each person's need for physical resources (except energy) is not growing now (unlike 1970s), with advances in tech meeting the same needs now requires less resources so we can continue to grow our economy within the limits of the same finite resources.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    We could decrease our rate of consumption/production, for one. The rate at which we're consuming is what's unsustainable. We have enough resources today to cover everyone's needs. The problem is we are producing well past that, and even still not everyone is getting what they need. Just look at how much food is thrown into dumpsters every day. Or all the energy locked up in landfills in the form of deteriorating plastics and electronics. All the junkyards filled with cars. Look at the thousands of acres of almond farms in CA's central valley. It takes a gallon of water to grow a single almond, yet the central valley is in perpetual drought. A better allocation of resources is what's needed. We live in a society where everything is disposable, and that has a huge energy cost that we don't factor in because energy is so cheap right now. When energy is more expensive, repairing, conserving, and reusing a thing will be a better choice instead of throwing it out and buying a new one.
polytely 5y ago
And you think the people in the 3/4th are going to let you do that? Because I'm guessing that the 3/4th doesn't include you and your loved ones.
- tomcooks 5y ago
  PC probably meant "by not making more children", not the thing you assumed.
pelasaco 5y ago
Well the OP didn't talk about wipe out people, but birth control. That can be enforced in many ways but for sure the best one is education https://blogs.worldbank.org/health/female-education-and-childbearing-closer-look-data https://blogs.worldbank.org/health/female-education-and-chil...
adrianN 5y ago
No, you just have about 4 times longer to become carbon neutral.

Is it though? Even if there were an event that wiped out 75% of people, it kicks the can down the road at most 30 years due to a baby boom. Refusing to solve the real problem is what got us in to this mess. It’s also utterly like us as a species to think that killing 3 out of 4 people is an easier fix than just living within our means.

boredtofears 5y ago
> It’s also utterly like us as a species to think that killing 3 out of 4 people is an easier fix than just living within our means. Individuals aren't really responsible for the mass amounts of pollutants put into the atmosphere the same way corporations are. In order for the human population to "live within it's means" at an impactful scale it would require a change of capitalist philosophy that quite obviously isn't going to change anytime soon. Kicking the can down the road 30 years is by far the best option we have available to us at this point (not that it will happen in my lifetime).
- rbanffy 5y ago
  > would require a change of capitalist philosophy that quite obviously isn't going to change anytime soon. Capitalism won’t go without a fight.
- headmelted 5y ago
  In order for the human population to "live within it's means" at an impactful scale it would require a change of capitalist philosophy that quite obviously isn't going to change anytime soon. Yes.
  - headmelted 5y ago
    To add to this, just doing away with capitalism does not solve this problem, and creates myriad others. Absolutely the scale of the problem is unprecedented though, but that message hasn’t changed in 50 years.

You-Are-Right 5y ago

You can start solving this by taking out yourself. Thanks!

fsloth 5y ago

That's horrible and would not solve the climate change.

boredtofears 5y ago
It would not solve climate change, but really, what's horrible about it? We live in a world of finite resources. If we, as a species, overpopulate to the point where these finite resources run dry, what are the best options?
- PeterisP 5y ago
  Because climate change is the only reason to do something like that - we need to solve the short term issue of pollution, because in the long run (e.g. a few centuries) overpopulation is not a problem as we're going to get a population stabilization and decrease just with current trends without a need to sacrifice anything for it; and we are getting more resource efficient over time, GDP growth has now finally (unlike all history) decoupled from growth in energy use and mineral use, etc. Climate change is a problem that makes us need a rapid solution right now even if its costly and painful, general depletion of resources really isn't; if it wasn't for climate change then we could just let the replacement of oil to renewables happen "naturally" as oil prices slowly increase as the supply decreases, the usual market incentives would be enough to manage the resource allocation. Finiteness of resources is not as big of an issue as it looked in 1970s (when the original Limits to Growth study was made) - with a stable or shrinking population (current situation in developed world, soon-to-arrive globally) each person's share of physical resources is the same all the while as each person's need for physical resources (except energy) is not growing now (unlike 1970s), with advances in tech meeting the same needs now requires less resources so we can continue to grow our economy within the limits of the same finite resources.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  We could decrease our rate of consumption/production, for one. The rate at which we're consuming is what's unsustainable. We have enough resources today to cover everyone's needs. The problem is we are producing well past that, and even still not everyone is getting what they need. Just look at how much food is thrown into dumpsters every day. Or all the energy locked up in landfills in the form of deteriorating plastics and electronics. All the junkyards filled with cars. Look at the thousands of acres of almond farms in CA's central valley. It takes a gallon of water to grow a single almond, yet the central valley is in perpetual drought. A better allocation of resources is what's needed. We live in a society where everything is disposable, and that has a huge energy cost that we don't factor in because energy is so cheap right now. When energy is more expensive, repairing, conserving, and reusing a thing will be a better choice instead of throwing it out and buying a new one.

polytely 5y ago

And you think the people in the 3/4th are going to let you do that? Because I'm guessing that the 3/4th doesn't include you and your loved ones.

tomcooks 5y ago
PC probably meant "by not making more children", not the thing you assumed.

pelasaco 5y ago

Well the OP didn't talk about wipe out people, but birth control. That can be enforced in many ways but for sure the best one is education https://blogs.worldbank.org/health/female-education-and-childbearing-closer-look-data https://blogs.worldbank.org/health/female-education-and-chil...

adrianN 5y ago

No, you just have about 4 times longer to become carbon neutral.