3 ms·

This. This is really the real direction we need. Changing to renewable energy is only one small part of the whole problem. The real problem is that there are to

This. This is really the real direction we need. Changing to renewable energy is only one small part of the whole problem. The real problem is that there are too many people on the planet.

simonhorlick 4y ago
The richest 10% of the global population are responsible for an estimated 47% of emissions. The problem has never been that there are too many people. The problem is that there is a small number of people that are destroying the planet for the rest of us.
- bruce343434 4y ago
  Could this be a case of Zipf’s law? I.e. there will always emerge a top 10%? In which case the true solution is to decrease human population across the globe.
- yakutori 4y ago
  > The problem is that there is a small number of people that are destroying the planet for the rest of us. I wonder if taking part in this forum is almost a sure indication of membership in the 10%, so perhaps it's us destroying the planet for the rest of them?
erklik 4y ago
This is such a lie. There are not "too" many people. Let's look at four nations China, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. These make up about 40% of the population of the world [1]. If you look at their per capita emissions, China is highest (7.6), India is 1.8, Pakistan is 0.9, and Bangladesh is 0.6. However, look at the highest numbers on that list and you'll see nations like Qatar at 32.5, Kuwait at 22.0. Yes, Granted, they don't have huge populations so overall, they're not pumping out that much. However, Australia, America, Canada also are emitting >14 tons per capita. The vast majority of these people do not need to be emitting that much but they do so to fuel luxury, and their "standard of living" while telling the people of countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, China that they need to do better. It's pretty hypocritical. The top 15% of the world needs to emiting much less. Not the bottom 40%. Pakistan is an even more interesting example because currently a third of the nation is underwater (literally an inland sea has formed [3]) because of floods that were defintely far more exacerbated this year due to climate change. They're the ones suffering from it (along with good old goverments being incompetent and not planning enough) while they've not benefitted from the emissions in the slightest. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen... 2. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Pakistan_floods#/media/File:2022_Pakistan_Floods_-_August_27,_2021_vs._August_27,_2022_in_Sindh.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Pakistan_floods#/media/Fi...
kkfx 4y ago
Demography is not as simple: China have chosen in the past an apparently logic solution, limiting numbers of new birth per woman so lower the total population. After a certain amount of time they realize that doing so new humans found MORE elders then their parent, generation after generation, as a result they have to work to care them instead of having a life. As a result the society can't evolve, there are not enough HUMAN young and active resources to evolve. A war kill many, but mostly young, so again you'll end up with a mean elder population. An epidemic typically kill the elders BUT no one can really program it enough in a mass controlled genocide that only modern sibling of ms adolf from Austria can imaging. The real problem is that we live to live. Not to work, not be workers. Thief's and criminals against humanity who actually run many world society, essentially all the westerners and most of the third world countries, pretend to treat humans a software, slave workers and can't really foresee the real outcome. They dream a future they can't build, that can't work, and they pretend to impose their vision stating that no, it does work indeed.

This. This is really the real direction we need. Changing to renewable energy is only one small part of the whole problem. The real problem is that there are too many people on the planet.

simonhorlick 4y ago

The richest 10% of the global population are responsible for an estimated 47% of emissions. The problem has never been that there are too many people. The problem is that there is a small number of people that are destroying the planet for the rest of us.

bruce343434 4y ago
Could this be a case of Zipf’s law? I.e. there will always emerge a top 10%? In which case the true solution is to decrease human population across the globe.
yakutori 4y ago
> The problem is that there is a small number of people that are destroying the planet for the rest of us. I wonder if taking part in this forum is almost a sure indication of membership in the 10%, so perhaps it's us destroying the planet for the rest of them?

erklik 4y ago

This is such a lie. There are not "too" many people. Let's look at four nations China, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. These make up about 40% of the population of the world [1]. If you look at their per capita emissions, China is highest (7.6), India is 1.8, Pakistan is 0.9, and Bangladesh is 0.6. However, look at the highest numbers on that list and you'll see nations like Qatar at 32.5, Kuwait at 22.0. Yes, Granted, they don't have huge populations so overall, they're not pumping out that much. However, Australia, America, Canada also are emitting >14 tons per capita. The vast majority of these people do not need to be emitting that much but they do so to fuel luxury, and their "standard of living" while telling the people of countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, China that they need to do better. It's pretty hypocritical. The top 15% of the world needs to emiting much less. Not the bottom 40%. Pakistan is an even more interesting example because currently a third of the nation is underwater (literally an inland sea has formed [3]) because of floods that were defintely far more exacerbated this year due to climate change. They're the ones suffering from it (along with good old goverments being incompetent and not planning enough) while they've not benefitted from the emissions in the slightest. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen... 2. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Pakistan_floods#/media/File:2022_Pakistan_Floods_-_August_27,_2021_vs._August_27,_2022_in_Sindh.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Pakistan_floods#/media/Fi...

kkfx 4y ago

Demography is not as simple: China have chosen in the past an apparently logic solution, limiting numbers of new birth per woman so lower the total population. After a certain amount of time they realize that doing so new humans found MORE elders then their parent, generation after generation, as a result they have to work to care them instead of having a life. As a result the society can't evolve, there are not enough HUMAN young and active resources to evolve. A war kill many, but mostly young, so again you'll end up with a mean elder population. An epidemic typically kill the elders BUT no one can really program it enough in a mass controlled genocide that only modern sibling of ms adolf from Austria can imaging. The real problem is that we live to live. Not to work, not be workers. Thief's and criminals against humanity who actually run many world society, essentially all the westerners and most of the third world countries, pretend to treat humans a software, slave workers and can't really foresee the real outcome. They dream a future they can't build, that can't work, and they pretend to impose their vision stating that no, it does work indeed.