3 ms·

People are neutral, unless they spend money (which is more or less a unit of pollution & carbon-emission)

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
Every 15 people is a ton (on average). And while we can't remove 20 billion people, 6 billion or so would make a nice dent. Additionally, those people consume energy. Once their consumption drops to zero, we see additional savings. I think I really have stumbled upon a solution here. The planet will be better off for it. What's wrong with this idea?
- 11235813213455 3y ago
  you can reason the same with ants but ants are like a human who doesn't spend money, or like a bird, they are sustainable, no need to remove them but no even need to be extreme/binary, 8 billion humans who live like a 3rd world country-side human and spend a little money is totally sustainable without any issue, because that's equivalent to less than a hundred million 1st world humans
  - klyrs 3y ago
    Birds are known for their nitrogen sequestration. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano
    - 11235813213455 3y ago
      Great, but that's more or less the same with other feces, composition vary in carbon or nitrogen, but they're all great fertilizers
- repelsteeltje 3y ago
  Be careful there, that doesn't sound nice. An increasing number of countries have declining birthrate. This slowly, steadily gets us in that direction but not without demographic problems and significant economic disruptions. Let's try keep it peaceful...
__MatrixMan__ 3y ago
There is no such thing as a carbon neutral human. We're ~20% carbon by mass. I do agree with your point about money though--economic activity is the primary cause of our excessive carbon footprint. We need to change how we practice money such that "number go up" type thinking correlates with progress toward agreeable goals instead of correlating with the consumption of nonrenewable resources.

Every 15 people is a ton (on average). And while we can't remove 20 billion people, 6 billion or so would make a nice dent. Additionally, those people consume energy. Once their consumption drops to zero, we see additional savings. I think I really have stumbled upon a solution here. The planet will be better off for it. What's wrong with this idea?

11235813213455 3y ago
you can reason the same with ants but ants are like a human who doesn't spend money, or like a bird, they are sustainable, no need to remove them but no even need to be extreme/binary, 8 billion humans who live like a 3rd world country-side human and spend a little money is totally sustainable without any issue, because that's equivalent to less than a hundred million 1st world humans
- klyrs 3y ago
  Birds are known for their nitrogen sequestration. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano
  - 11235813213455 3y ago
    Great, but that's more or less the same with other feces, composition vary in carbon or nitrogen, but they're all great fertilizers
repelsteeltje 3y ago
Be careful there, that doesn't sound nice. An increasing number of countries have declining birthrate. This slowly, steadily gets us in that direction but not without demographic problems and significant economic disruptions. Let's try keep it peaceful...

__MatrixMan__ 3y ago

There is no such thing as a carbon neutral human. We're ~20% carbon by mass. I do agree with your point about money though--economic activity is the primary cause of our excessive carbon footprint. We need to change how we practice money such that "number go up" type thinking correlates with progress toward agreeable goals instead of correlating with the consumption of nonrenewable resources.