U.N. climate report shows civilization is at stake if we don’t act now

Interesting idea but the main problem is not just too many people but a geometrically increasing population of people. Remember when Bush II caved and signed the biofuel bill? The price of corn shot up to the point people would starve.

The best way, IMO, to reduce the human carbon footprint is to reduce the number of humans.

 

If this method reversed desertification, then there is not too many people.

 

Disagreed. It would be a Band-Aid for the problem. There's only so much land. Even if you drained the oceans, there's still be a finite amount of space. Even if you drained the oceans and built two mile high buildings all across the planet, guess what? Eventually there'd be too many people.

My solution? Two main ones: 1) Export people to other worlds, asteroids or space stations. 2) those that remain need to abide by reproduction rules. The alternative is to either induce plague or let nature take it's course. Nature is funny; it often has a drastic way to restore balance to the ecosystem.

 

I don't disagree.

 

Hope is a four letter word.

But many things are possible.

 

Some good points.

Basically, it looks like humans are overtaxing the system to collapse.

The idea that we can, as a species, get together and be reasonable & wise & clever enough to stop it...?

 

Take that as an indication that he is trying to derail your thread.

 

It would be ridiculous to wait for everyone else to get onboard.

 

Yeah I remember when they said we would all be frozen by now and the population would be so huge we would have all starved to death by now.

 

Oh. I didn't know that. It seems you owe it to the world to get in touch with the global warming experts and tell them.

 

That price explosion wouldn't have happened under socialism. Socialism allows us to solve problems that cannot be solved under capitalism.

 

The best thing to do is invent a time machine, go back 50 years, and believe scientists!

 

Sorry, dude, but that's a pipe dream. One, how do you plan on paying for? Tax the rich until there are no rich to tax? Then what? Secondly, and most importantly, it doesn't solve the inevitable overpopulation problem. How does Socialism solve that? The Stalin method?

 

...plague. A good avian flu virus with a 90% mortality rate would solve the problem for a few centuries.

 

True, socialism just starves people in general.

 

If you want to seriously deal with food security, deal with food waste. 40% of US grown food ends up as waste.

https://www.moveforhunger.org/about-food-waste/

 

yeah, I try not to use the stuff myself. There is a 100% gas (no ethanol) station here.
Life-cycle analysis shows that ethanol produces more GHG than fossil fuels.

 

yeah, and it essentially makes carbon a moot point.

 

ok, so you are skeptical. I can relate. I am too, to a point.

That said, the regenerative Ag methods I am promoting do more than sequester carbon in grassland soil. They also completely stop ag rainwater runoff, which is what is causing things like red tides and dead zones. You know about those? The red tide is what was killing all the sea turtles in the Gulf this year. It is caused by flooded manure ponds at confined animal feedlots, called CAFOs. The methods are called regenerative agriculture, and they restore soil moisture retention, which is what prevents erosion too. Another cause of harmful algal blooms or red tides.

Here is the Ted Talk from Allan Savory. He is one of the people who has been working on this design.

 

Ya know, if we continue eating meat grown on industrial farms and pumped full of antibiotics for growth, you may see that.

 

The increase in the price of corn due to anticipated biofuel demands was pure opportunism which is a capitalist flaw. It had nothing to do with cost of production. Under socialism and central planning the price of corn would have been kept stable and there would be no opportunism.

 

Support all efforts to bring industry back here where it can be environmentally friendly. Which might mean loosening up a few regs to keep it profitable. More industry here thats mostly clean is better than more industry there where its entirely dirty.

 

That is good. I also said that although tariffs are temporary, if they slow down international shipping, they reduce GHG emissions.

 

Space colonization is the answer.

As for the near future, we could stop restricting access to so much natural resource. Theres certainly an argument for preserving some natural wonder, but something like 50% of the land west of the mississippi is federal and unavailable for use. Its far worse in many countries like china.

 

I mean, in something like 2 billion years the Milky Way will collide with Andromeda or something like that, so unless we totally **** this planet up we should survive. That said, if the planet actually does warm up like they are predicting, we will not have our coastal cities. That means everyone living on the coast will be moving inland. Sounds shitty.