4 ms·

I’d argue that "less human" is a net positive for Earth.

• anonymoushn 3y ago
  You first :)
  • blooalien 3y ago
    How about the people who actually caused (and are still actively causing, and fighting to continue causing) the problem go first, yeah?
    • wongarsu 3y ago
      So nuke most of the Western World? The couple still-standing cold war bunkers should be enough to house the couple of deserving offgriders and climate activists that can be judged innocent. And yes, we would also have to kill part of China, especially the cities
      • blooalien 3y ago
        Oh yeah, because using nukes always works out for the best for everyone involved, yeah? Let's just do that. Much faster and more efficient than waiting for the 1% to boil us slowly to death.
        • wongarsu 3y ago
          It's more efficient than trying to put a billion people (give or take a couple) to the guillotine or the electrical chair, and the side effect of nuclear winter didn't seem that bad to me given the context. Might cause some food shortages though
      • jjav 3y ago
        > So nuke most of the Western World? This thread is silly. To reduce the world population you don't need to kill anyone at all. You simply look for ways to reduce birth rates.
    • Slava_Propanei 3y ago
      [dead]
    • techdmn 3y ago
      Of course the trouble is those same people have been capturing enough value out of the destructive process that they will surely go last. I suspect this is no small part of the reason we're in the fix we're in.
    • revscat 3y ago
      A war is required but discussion of it is forbidden.
      • blooalien 3y ago
        You're sadly probably right on both counts. (The second part for sure, judging by you gettin' downvoted to oblivion.)
    • gottorf 3y ago
      The very existence of something affects its environment. Even the caveman burned sticks for warmth; would you say he is the "cause" of "the problem" of increased carbon emissions? Because unarguably he did release carbon into the atmosphere. So you'd have to be very specific about the "cause" and the "problem". The electricity that feeds my computer allowing me to type this comment comes from the local power plant, which is fossil-fuel based (coal and natural gas). Shall I be put to death? Or am I far enough removed, and instead perhaps the CEO of the utility company? Or considering that they answer to the shareholders, maybe anybody who owns shares? Considering that it's a publicly-traded company that serves roughly 4% of the landmass of the continental US, that's quite a lot of people. In the end, nobody burns polluting coal and gas for fun. They do it because it's the economical choice; if we could all have abundant clean energy from fusion power at the wave of a wand, we would do it. The fact remains that "problems" cannot be "solved" as much as they need to be weighed against the tradeoffs; there is no free lunch, and the scarce time and resources that can be spent "solving" something can be equally spent somewhere else. I'm afraid that the desire of some people to classify the problem of the changing climate as a categorical imperative that must be "solved" at any cost does not change the underlying reality, which is that "at any cost" is an impossible thing in real life.
      • jjav 3y ago
        > nobody burns polluting coal and gas for fun. Look up rolling coal. But yes, most people don't.