/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14876610
How far are you willing to go?

>>14876610
Your personal carbon emissions have effectively zero impact on the global environment. If you want to make a tangible difference, go pick up litter in your neighborhood or local nature park.

>>14876620
>go pick up litter in your neighborhood
Problems need to be dealt with at the source, fren.

>>14876657
Poor brown people are the ones that litter. What are you going to do about it. Answer me

>>14876657
What is "the source" here?

>>14876612
Very much. Can you tell me what I should do?

>>14876668
>What are you going to do about it. Answer me
No.

>>14876610
Vote LEFT and DO NOT vote right, ever.

>>14876657
you have no power to attack problems like that at the source, this kind of thinking is just justification for being lazy

>>14876684
>you have no power to attack problems like that at the source
>t. euro

>>14876668
Objectively not, most waste is produced for and consumed by the west. While the third world lacks proper resources to deal with the trash produced by this, they're not doing it for the benefit of their own people.

>>14876687
Elaborate

>>14876690
he's talking about poor brown citizens of the west and it's objectively true, go to your nearest city and observe the levels of litter in various neighborhoods

>i am the savior of mother nature
>i am the savior of planet earth
>i am such a fantastic person
>you owe me bigtime because of what a saint i am

>>14876696
>Elaborate
No.

>>14876726
one infers from your reply that you think the most effective way to stop litter is to get your gun and start killing undesirables
while this is conceptually sound, pragmatically you will not make a very big dent in the litter problem before you are apprehended and jailed for life
you could always nuke the ghetto, but that would cause its own environmental damage
ultimately your infeasible minecraft fantasies are exactly that, and you would make a much more significant impact by going for a litter-picking walk every week for the rest of your life.

Bump.

>>14876620

this.

>>14876915
>I AM SAVING THE PLANET BY PICKING UP LITTER
meds, now

Eating bugs will not save the planet, but could make you sickly, with a slight advantage of staving of starvation for when there is nothing available to eat.

also there's something like a over a billion insects per person on earth. we have no idea if this number is even right as no one can guess how many i sects there are in a square mile let alone the entire earth. all fighting to be the dominant speicies here. lets forget "saving the bees" and maybe come up with a different solution for so called "web of life issues" which are probably set up by DMT mantid (interdimensional beings) such as taking a small portion some corporations make and find a solution for what goes wrong when we kill all mosquitos who have been the # killer of humans throughout all of history

>>14878338
What does this have to do with humans improving the environment?

>>14876610
the key observation is that humanity is stressing the environment in terms of the resources it takes.
to fix environmental problems caused by humanity, you need to reduce this stress.
there are many ways to do this. the most obvious is to limit human behavior. many argue that technological advancment offers an alternative route, but historically this only accelerates humanity's destruction of the environment.

>>14878464
How do you limit human behavior? And what behaviors should be limited?
What other ways can we alleviate the stress put on the environment besides limiting human behavior?

>>14878492
By reducing the amount of humans.

>>14878496
OK Mr. Gates, time to go back to the retirement home.

>>14878436

the environment is just fine. concern for it is a religion of academia (for profit) lets not worry so much about other species and the environment so much as mitigating human suffering

>>14878492
>How do you limit human behavior?
with almost 8 Gpeople and growing, there isn't really a way. the train we're on has no brakes.
if one were to attempt such an undertaking, it would have to take the form of government and economic policy, since the only way to motivate humans at scale appears to be money.

>>14878496
>By reducing the amount of humans.
>>14878542
he's not wrong. this is a way to reduce humanity's burden on the environment. it's just not going to happen. also everyone assumes that reducing population == genocide for some stupid fucking reason.
it's a shame that people as a group are no smarter than a parasite that sickens its host or a cancer that stresses everything until the breaking point. a lot of preventable suffering lies ahead of humanity in the 21st and 22nd centuries.

>>14876610
mass murder

>>14878332
>I WILL SAVE THE PLANET
No, but you can save your immediate environment

>>14878695
Yes you can

>>14876657
stop driving and flying over the globe and be like a bonsai tree. Buy everything that folds, compacts, and telescopes. You can communicate with the entire planet from your computer, rule the world that way if you must

>>14876610
> without eating bugs or living in pods?
> especially those who are leftist (and are biased in their research)
Not browsing /pol/ would be a good start to have a better understanding of everything, including the environment. That's your first step.
The only alternative to what you call "leftist" science is right-wing antiempiricism and anti-intellectualism. So any solution coming from that side will be retarded.

Consoom less, of everything. All of those products, knicknacks, clothes, whatever else have to be manufactured in big pollutive factories. Buy less, reuse more, dampen demand and your own footprint. Keep lights off and only use electricity where actively in use. Recycle things.

We don't need a government mandate or tax/spend/regulate policy to put a big dent in waste and emissions honestly, if everyone took it upon themselves to use like 30% less that would make a major hit itself. But of course that would require.... personal responsibility. Thought. Too scary!

>>14880206

as opposed to the endless statist "solutions" conjured by people who don't realize they're being used to further other revenue seeking entities, like the state, or "renewables" industry? Don't get it twisted, academics are leftists because the state pays their salary, there isn't much else to it.

>>14880206
Why do you assume that only one political side can be intellectual when it comes to science? The way the scientific method works is that anyone can intellectually contribute, so long as they follow it