There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

smer ,
@smer@slrpnk.net avatar

no, just kill the system we live in, which is fueling the climate catastrophe.

Surp ,
@Surp@lemmy.world avatar

Ok Hitler…

problematicPanther ,
@problematicPanther@lemmy.world avatar

Nuking wouldn’t really be the way to go, it’ll destroy the world in other ways.

cygnosis , (edited )

(attempting to answer the question instead of shaming the questioner)

It might have helped solve the problem if we did it 50 or 60 years ago, along with global EMP strikes to disable all the vehicles and industrial equipment, and a global commitment to return to an agrarian low-energy lifestyle. And if you prioritized the most highly industrialized cities that produce the greatest carbon per capita. But the sad truth is that, right now, it’s already too late. We have already released so much carbon into the atmosphere that we are more or less guaranteed to see 4 degrees C above pre-industrial. And if you aren’t already retired you will probably see it in your lifetime. Along the way that triggers a series of cascading feedback loops which, all-told, will likely take the planet to about 10C above pre-industrial. We continue to release something like 40 billion metric tons per year. And the best CCS facility we have, in Iceland, can sequester about 4,000 tons per year. We are racing toward the cliff with the throttle at full speed and no corrupt government scientist is going to take away my truck or make me eat bugs.

And questions about who should die, who should be killed, and such don’t even really matter now. They sound immoral, but if the projections are right it looks like all of us who aren’t already old are going to die from climate change anyways. So pontificating on things that aren’t ever going to happen is just academic onanism.

dan1101 ,

Bill Burr said we should start sinking cruise ships.

fern ,

OP convenient that your living location isn’t on the list. Maybe start looking inward? If you remove 2/3 of your mass you’d be doing your part, right?

KISSmyOS , (edited )

No, the only reason we want to stop global warming in the first place is to prevent the death of 2/3 of all humans.
No one gives a fuck about the polar bears, really.

Delphia ,

I actually think this could work with one important adjustment.

We should probably start with the people who think that killing off large portions of the population is a great idea and stop once we run out of those people.

lordnikon ,

oh 2/3s will die just not by humanity hands directly. heat, extreme weather, more pandemics. it’s all coming earth will get it’s payment in blood.

southsamurai ,
@southsamurai@sh.itjust.works avatar

I mean, nuking? That ain’t exactly going to fix anything.

Like, the whole idea is bad, but dropping nukes is it’s own environmental disaster as bad or worse than global warming.

Even using conventional munitions is going to cause fires and literal megatons of debris to be released into the atmosphere and water. This ain’t going to fix anything.

It also assumes that population control is the fix in the first place, and it isn’t. The population levels would only shift the speed of change, not the fact of it. To stop or reverse the changes, you have to change the underlying cause of the change, which is pretty much down to industrial processes across multiple areas, including agriculture.

Yeah, you kill off enough people, industrial efforts might cease, but it’s more likely that the remaining people are going to have to rely on the most effective methods to stay alive and functional, rather than the methods that are environmentally best.

Today ,

Covid tried. Eventually the earth will win.

CarbonatedPastaSauce ,

Username checks out.

etchinghillside ,

Calm down Thanos.

iiGxC ,

If people who hunt with population control as the excuse were logically consistent then they’d say yes

A_A , (edited )
@A_A@lemmy.world avatar

The one child policy as was imposed in China is the most drastic that is ethically tolerable.
And, lack of resources will soon enough convince people to make less children.
You don’t have to kill yourself today because you may die in 50 years - - this is blindingly obvious.

XeroxCool ,

I don’t think limited resources ever results in reduced births. 100 years ago, US parents were making lots of kids and not naming them for the first year because infant mortality was so high. Education is what slows the birthrate.

A_A ,
@A_A@lemmy.world avatar

You are right that it happened in the past and it still happens in many countries today : without education we are going toward disaster.
But i was trying to have a somewhat optimistic view and if you consider China’s one child policy it necessitated more education but this policy was sparked by a lack of resources.
We could find more examples where education combine with lack of resources would go the way i was saying.

XeroxCool ,

I suppose with global education on the rise, prior examples won’t always be accurate. I wasn’t considering China’s example to be part of an increased education amount because it didn’t necessarily teach the average citizen why they should limit kids, but a governing decision that results in the same outcome could still count.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •