[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 29 KB, 741x568, BEB99699-1DF7-4FEF-8705-8251522DA906.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10300791 No.10300791 [Reply] [Original]

Wait...if we just reduce the population in the world, won’t that stop global warming for good?

>> No.10300792

>>10300791
you go first

>> No.10300795

>>10300791
>for good
>implying the world wouldn't repopulate eventually

>> No.10300796
File: 1.34 MB, 1920x1080, Endless-Space-Free-Download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10300796

>>10300791
It'll also cripple technological progress. For my money we should just be shooting for efficiency. deplete earth's resources as efficiently as possible while we develop the means to transcend it.

>> No.10300802

>>10300792
>>10300795
>>10300796
It’s just simple math though. If each person emits 2 tons of CO2 a year, then if you just remove 6.5 billion you do not emit 13 billion tons of CO2 a year into the atmosphere. There. Global warming solved and the Paris Climate Change Agreement satisfied.

>> No.10300807

Make a big lotto, kill everyone that plays it, everypne that plays lotto isn't useful anyway.

>> No.10300813 [DELETED] 
File: 57 KB, 1024x768, 8D.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10300813

>>10300802
Thanks for replying to my post while ignoring its contents. Have a (You)

>> No.10300816

>>10300791
Not enough in time and the genocide will have other environmental effects.

>> No.10300817

>>10300802
Also might I add, without those 6.5 billion people, it would also reduce our need for fossil fuels for transportation and chemicals, so that’s an additional 10-20 billion tons of CO2 not emitted into the atmosphere.

Can’t help but think that reducing population is the BIG elephant in the room here which is the best possible chance of preventing climate change than other methods such as taxes

>> No.10300820

>>10300817
It is, but no one wants to be removed so they just bullshit it with muh morals, I'd be removed but I support it.

>> No.10300821

>>10300817
really makes you think

>> No.10300826

>>10300820
Eh, so killing most humans slow the burning of the earth. So the monkeys and starfishes would have another couple million years to sit around doing fuck all. At least we humans actually do shit.

>> No.10300828

>>10300826
Most people do fuck all, just breed, infight and repeat.

>> No.10300831

>>10300807
You don't need to kill people. All you need is a no child policy. In 50 years we'll have fuckrobots that're better than the real thing, so all a government would need to do is subsidize fuckbots and put a huge tax on child rearing. And prepare it's economy for massive depopulation.

>> No.10300832

>>10300828
Edgy

>> No.10300833
File: 67 KB, 1000x841, s-l1000.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10300833

>>10300828
astute observation there, chap.

>> No.10300844

Antinatalists are the only people who dont live by their philosophy.

>> No.10300847

>>10300796
To be fair if we purge brainlet countries after full industrial automation(no cheap labour force required), how would that halt scientific progress?

>> No.10300852 [DELETED] 

>>10300791
Only if we get rid of the first worlders. You could remove all third worlders and it would barely make a dent in greenhouse gas emissions.

>> No.10300855

>>10300844
Is hard when you are already born mate.

>> No.10300857

>>10300852
Just remove everyone, everyone's due to degradation.

>> No.10300863

>>10300855
kill urself my man

>> No.10300864

>>10300847
It wouldn't, but it wouldn't halt global warming either, unless all of those automated factories are carbon neutral.

>> No.10300870

>>10300863
I'm going to die, 60 years is the same as 5 seconda.

>> No.10300875

>>10300864
Less people = less factories needed to produce food, water and daily life equipment.

>> No.10300887

>>10300875
Agriculture only accounts for 15% of the world's carbon footprint. A reduction in population would certainly put a dent in emissions, but it alone won't end them.

>> No.10300901

>>10300887
No, first worlders are not to be blame for your mistakes.

>> No.10300907

>>10300791
That's what carbon tax is for.
It artificially increases the prices of fuel and electricity, affecting all of the production and transport in the world.
Costs of life get higher.
In less developed countries it means more people dying (food too expensive due to increasing production, transport and storage costs; lack of electricity in hospitals, etc.)
In developed countries higher costs of life mean less families and less children born).
Depopulation is not about killing people, it's about making it costly to stay alive.

>> No.10300960

>>10300901
There's the racism I was looking for.

>> No.10301764

>>10300832
>>10300833
It's true though. 99.9999% of people contribute virtually nothing, and aren't even needed to support the 0.0001% who do.

>> No.10301767

>>10300907
>Depopulation is not about killing people, it's about making it costly to stay alive.
Same result in the end though.

>> No.10301900

>>10301767
One is more humane than the other

>> No.10301919

>>10301764
By what fucking metric? Were all inventions invented by 0.0001% of the population? Which 0.0001%? Inventors? Is it possible to trim the fat and have a society where everyone contributes something influential? Or are you just chastising all of the players who didn’t win the lottery?

>> No.10301935

>>10300791
That will bring about global cooling and kill everyone.

>> No.10301955

>>10300791
This. Nuke Africa.

>> No.10302999

>>10300791
I mean sure, but from a logistical and moral standpoint it's stupid. Just make products that emit less carbon dioxide or use less carbon dioxide in general.

We have 7 billion brains on the earth. Why get rid of half of them when they could be used to help solve global problems