81–90 of 283 posts
This is why we need less humans on this planet. No one says that, because having as many kids as you like seems to be considered a basic human right. But imagine Earth with a stable 10% of our current population. Clean, abundant, and without the catastrophic extinction event already underway.
Your rich cheap-airline flying, consumerist car owner will emit far more than many families in the developing world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the day that humans manage to wipe themselves off the face of the planet will be a day of rejoicing for all species other than rats, raccoons, and cockroaches.
Care to explain why not for rats, raccoons and cockroaches?
I'm hoping this is a significantly sized piece of the puzzle in the proof against the 'us puny humans can't affect something as large as the earth's atmosphere' climate denial argument. Since the lockdowns the horizon where I live has no brown haze smeared over, and it's not even a significantly sized city (population ~1.5 million), but the lack of haze is noticeable. The presence of the brown smear haze was actually…
This is why we need less humans on this planet. No one says that, because having as many kids as you like seems to be considered a basic human right. But imagine Earth with a stable 10% of our current population. Clean, abundant, and without the catastrophic extinction event already underway.
Usually this argument boils down to "everyone I know and like should still be allowed to live, but we should totally get rid of billions of anonymous (poor) people"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
COPD + COVID sounds like a death sentence, so if I suffered from it, I too would avoid hospitals (and anyone else) like the literal plague.
I can't speak for COPD but I'm very familiar with a different chronic pulmonary disease (Cystic Fibrosis), and it seems to _strangely_ not be a huge risk factor for poor COVID outcomes. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S156919932... No one really has a good story for why (and it may not hold) but it seems to be consistent with the idea that the most important variable is truly just age.
This is why we need less humans on this planet. No one says that, because having as many kids as you like seems to be considered a basic human right. But imagine Earth with a stable 10% of our current population. Clean, abundant, and without the catastrophic extinction event already underway.
Any chance to see a “before” picture? I searched without success. Or is that kind of the point?
I think that's the point! I found some possible candidates on Google Street View (which only has isolated spots): From Chobhar in March 2019, facing Everest: https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6541403,85.2796492,3a,75y,78... Elsewhere in Kathmandu in April 2020, facing Everest: https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6745306,85.3249687,3a,75y,59... There's no hope of seeing that far through the haze.
This is why we need less humans on this planet. No one says that, because having as many kids as you like seems to be considered a basic human right. But imagine Earth with a stable 10% of our current population. Clean, abundant, and without the catastrophic extinction event already underway.
Which ones of your friends and family members should be culled? You get to keep 10%. Usually this argument boils down to "everyone I know and like should still be allowed to live, but we should totally get rid of billions of anonymous (poor) people"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, it looks like this will be short-lived. China's emissions for some pollutants are already above what they were pre-shutdown. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-...
Oh, F*ck :( Greedy human race Signed: bleeding coral reef with sad penguin
This is why we need less humans on this planet. No one says that, because having as many kids as you like seems to be considered a basic human right. But imagine Earth with a stable 10% of our current population. Clean, abundant, and without the catastrophic extinction event already underway.
Are you volunteering to go first?
China had a one-child policy for a while. I think the world would be much better if other countries would restrict the reproduction of humans in a sensible way. Only those who can afford to bring up children with a minimum quality of life should be allowed to.