Technology

59589 readers

3024 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

472

Trying to reverse climate change won’t save us, scientists warn (www.theverge.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/technology@lemmy.world

140 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] 0x0@programming.dev 21 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

if we drastically reduce the human population. Which would not only avoid the issues caused by climate change but also would prevent further increases in pollution and CO2 emissions.

Ignoring the genocide-apologist trend, the pandemic did wonders to reduce global warming.., perhaps start taxing more the companies that force back-to-office when they could clearly keep most of their work force at home?

[–] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

And, eliminate Euclidean zoning in the U.S., so that people can live near where they work, or work near where they live. (Not all of us can do it, or like working from home.)

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 weeks ago

Yup, mixed zoning would do wonders. Why we don't do that is beyond me...

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

What genocide? Just sensible reproduction. There's two options. 10 billion people living miserably like during the pandemic. Or maybe 1 billion people being able to live good lives.

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

What about 2 billion people living pretty-good lives or 9 billion people living less-miserably? That's at least two more options right there.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

There are infinite options we start doing fractions! (Please don't)

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 weeks ago

We can completely solve it with 10 billion 1/2 people

[–] petersr@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

So who should go? You?

[–] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago

I’m pretty sure he said have less children, not start death camps.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I literally said just having less children.

And I'm totally ok to only having between one or zero children myself.

[–] 0x0@programming.dev 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

China tried it, didn't go too well... good luck trying it on a global scale...

[–] MaggiWuerze@feddit.org 8 points 3 weeks ago

Chinas problem was also a still very uneducated and traditionalist populace, that insisted on having boys as heirs. Leading to abortions or straight up murder of female infants. That wouldn't really be a global issue I beleive

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Derived problems were product of a sexist society should be avoidable, you know, ending sexism...

Or are you supporting that people should be able to want male babies over female ones?

[–] 0x0@programming.dev -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Oooooh, of course, how could i forget? Blame the cis white male and the patriarchy, or course!

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 weeks ago

Literally the only big problem with china one-child policy, was that sexist parents were practicing selective abortions to ensure that they get one male kid.

No sexism = no problem