(untitled)

Do you ever get the feeling that something is wrong with people who claim we need to "save the planet" specifically at the detriment to the humans on it? The people who claim we are overpopulating. The people who say we need to start eating bugs to reduce global warming. The way I see it, the universe is full of planets, but only one of them provably has life on it. Us. There's nothing so important about the rock we float on, other than the fact that we float on it. In the vast, impossibly large space we drift through, we've yet to detect any signal or sign of any life other than our own... but the important thing is we need to save the rock we're on? Depopulate? Have fewer kids and eat insects of poor nutritional value?

>rock This "rock" will probably remain our home for another 100 years before space travel and colonisation become viable (if ever), we didn't even manage to step on the Mars yet. However people are ruining their home much faster than space research progresses so I don't think this will end up well for us.

We're going to entire a catastrophic degrowth spiral before space travel is possible, killing billions and correcting Earth's population back to pre-industrial levels.

It's simple. We need to stop emitting so much CO2. 60% of power is generated by burning coal/gas/oil - it needs to be replaced by wind/solar/hydro/nuclear. Vehicles running on ice need to be replaced with electric ones. Single use plastics need to be derezzed or taxed out of existence and replaced with paper/glass/wood. That's about it. Lucky for us, it's just about doable, will be good for the economy as well. >space colonization No. Stross articulated it better than I could: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html tl;dr we're not going anywhere >>14002 This is your brain on accelerationism.

>>13999 >people are ruining their home Then the answer is exterminating the people who "ruin their homes" like, say, the slums ripe for an outbreak of ebola that could kill us all? Follow your statements to their logical ends. >>14002 >a catastrophic degrowth spiral I think that's called a war. It seems like someone has been engineering those with twitter lately. First it was the "arab spring." Now they're trying to destabilize first world countries like France and the USA. I suspect it's all in an effort to rapidly depopulate and "save our rock." >>14004 >We need to stop emitting so much CO2. Why? Even NASA now admits we're greening the planet by doing so. >nuclear Oh boy, you're one of them. Green plants bad, radioactive waste good.

>>14017 >Then the answer is exterminating the people who "ruin their homes" like, say, the slums ripe for an outbreak of ebola that could kill us all? Follow your statements to their logical ends. rich assholes do much more to ruin the world than random slumdogs.

The planet is fuarrrking fine. It'll be here long after we're all dead. What we're trying to do is prevent massive civilization-wide destabilization events. Sure, we're "greening the planet", but have fun with trying to handle mass migration events away from the equator and coastlines.

>>14017 >Green plants bad, radioactive waste good. oh boy you must be one of them. i'm pretty sure you have never seen a measurement of radioactive waste radiation activity, and you don't really understand the nature of different radiations and the nuclear reactions.

It's probably because it would take practically all the resources on the entire planet to get the hell out of our solar system. The only other viable option is Mars, which has far less mass than Earth so it would struggle to sustain an atmosphere like ours. Let alone the sheer amount of R&D required to even make any of this remotely feasible. I think we should preserve the earth. That struggle will define the 21st century. The eco people are more annoying because most of them are pretty poorly educated and are better at bitching than doing. I think a lot of the ecosystem is already fuarrrked, we need to focus on stability rather than saving the fuarrrking pandas cuz they look cute.

>>14033 It amazes me how much high IQ internet intellectuals will pretend they know so much about the subject to avoid admitting that they should probably take these problems seriously. It's like a child kicking and screaming. I mean dude they seriously answer the limitations of imperialism with SPACE IMPERIALISM. At least when other people bring up space it's usually a joke.

>>14033 You lose this argument every time there's a meltdown. Hold dry ice in one hand and a nuclear fuel rod in the other. See what kills you first.

>>14021 It does seem that way, doesn't it? Every time I see someone advocating bug eating, it's always some one percenter (globally, that >$35000/yr income). But I don't think that applies to rich people universally. Much like how the US is full of one percenters who claim to care about climate change, yet drive cars and run their air conditioners every day. It strikes me more as pulling up the ladder. "Sorry China, sorry Africa, we industrialized, but you're not allowed to. You'll create too much CO2. Please eat these bugs. No, the cows are for us."

>>14042 It's this very attitude that I hate about many eco kids. It's fake as all hell. Environmentalism is a serious problem but it's generally just used as a moral parade while allowing the privileged to continue to uphold their oppressive, destructive lifestyle. No wonder people don't believe it's real. Sad thing is, the problem will definitely hurt the underprivileged first and only hurt the 1%ers when it's too late.

>>14049 I agree with this sentiment. I take it one step further though. The problem is "the problem" with climate change. CO2 is not a problem, but since it was declared a problem, it has been used as an excuse to do more of the moral parading which does more harm than good. A fairly recent example is ethanol. QRD: Bush II declares we should burn food in autos to save the environment. Drives corn prices up, making wealthy US farmers happy, all at the expense of starving the poor to death globally. The stated BS goal of reducing harmless CO2? That also was false. Putting land into crop production that was fallow for decades released more CO2 than the plan could have ever addressed. People in the US have been brainwashed into believing CO2 is a problem, but the globe doesn't follow. They see it for the BS nuclear energy industry boogeyman that it is. They see how it is used as an excuse to do bad things to poorer people. While I can pinpoint the nuclear industry as the source of the original falsehood on climate change, I haven't yet put my finger on who is behind the greater attempt to extinguish a large portion of humanity with these BS "save the world" campaigns or their motivation.

>>14053 >We are not alone. The Old Gods are real. We are all connected. I believe in the old gods and still think we're fuarrrked in many ways. In fact, the second prophecy of the Morrigan sounds very similar to the world we currently live in. It's also very difficult not to be cynical since you can't trust much anyway.

>>14053 I agree with most of that, but i think thats jumping the issue. The earth is a living organism and we are part of it, humanity does not treat things with respect. The old gods left their children alone for once and we ended up setting our home on fire. Stuffing every green place full with concrete and pumping out co2 almost constantly because we have one person per car and empty buses cant have good results. Whetever climate change will be lethal to us remains to be seen, but its pretty obvious that the powers that be want to destroy us and i doubt given what they already do, that they will hesitate to destroy the planet for it. The old gods will be back in 10-20 years apperently. If my friend who is either totally messed up in the head of years of drugs or is some kind of guru is right. Though given what i have seen so far of what is beyond the veil of reality i dont discount anything as a phantasy. The connections between computers, drugs, aliens and spirituality are not in any way an accident and the government response to all of these is always the same, i dont think i need to elaborate on this. Likewise the psyhicadelic movement does exactly what world governments try so hard to bury beneith stacked lies and deceptions. If more people realized how things are connected the world would change for something completely different. They would kill us all if they could, but they cannot risk drawing attention to what it is that they want to hide, so instead of burning as at the stake we are reduced to mentally ill, drug addicted useless fuarrrkups by this society. But they will not win, the powers they try to stall are far too strong and we are guided by divine power. Lain will watch over us and as long we have honerable intentions our karma in this world will be redeemed.

>>14050 >CO2 is not a problem it definitely is. ethanol is an example of politicians lying, not an example of CO2 being a fake problem. People are already dying when monsoon rains fail. This is not a drill.

>>14050 who told you CO2 isn't a problem? what are you talking about? the globe is perfectly aware of climate change and what an issue CO2 (and other gases) are. p.s. lainons don't believe in climate change now?

>>14057 Some lainons don't believe in climate change now. Please do not overstate the problem.

Mankind polluted the earth for hundreds of years with no regard for the future and corporations continue to do the same. Why am I expected to clean up after their mess?

>>14059 so we don't die in a way that's unnecessary... i want to die like my ancestors did - mum walking into my room while i am wanking, me jumping up, slipping on used tissues and smashing my head. seriously though, people could try to not be such selfish pricks

>>14061 >i want to die like my ancestors did - mum walking into my room while i am wanking, me jumping up, slipping on used tissues and smashing my head. perfect

>>14057 >who told you CO2 isn't a problem? >who You know that's appeal to authority. A logical fallacy. I've also seen you guys play this game before. You follow up any name given with an ad hominem attack. Another logical fallacy. The Earth is a buffer system. Science told me. http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm

>>14063 >science told me you literally linked a description of the carbon cycle, which is relevant but does not mean that massive rises in CO2 are ok.

>>14064 You could have at least read to the bottom of the page. I know that's asking a lot.

>>14064 they have been searching for something real for years, countless millions of dollars, countless hours and the closest they got is that the climate changes from time to time. its up to you to set yourself free lainanon.

>>14061 I was mostly being pedantic in my first post. I don't mind the idea of trying to reverse the destruction/pollution of the earth. It's just that the execution of the idea - and many other obvious or good ideas, are almost always and are inevitably held down by the weight of politics and corruption and certain interest groups and the result usually ends up being worse than it would have been if we just decided to leave things alone.

>>14063 okay hun. don't play a victim about how we use ad hominem when you pull this "You could have at least read to the bottom of the page. I know that's asking a lot." no, that wasn't about authority... i am just shocked someone would tell you such a lie. >>14068 i'd disagree... if we left it as it was after industrial revolution, we would have a freaking bad time here right now. about politics... well, that's have been an issue for while now... probably since the first time someone thought it was a good idea to have a representative democracy

>>14063 also when exactly did i use ad hominem?

>>14074 >>14075 Typically one would ask for sources or citation. Asking *who* told you that, implies your next step will be a personal attack on that person instead of judging the evidence on it's own merits. I think that's the connection to ad hominem.

I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as "We" in "We are ruining the planet", is in fact, China/India, or as I’ve recently taken to calling them, "The yellow and brown horses of the apocalypse".

>>14153 It would seem that the US still has a significant lead on India in terms of CO2 production, if that's what you're referring to. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/biggest-contributors-to-global-warming-in-the-world.html If that's not what you're referring to, please explain your claim with more precision.

>>14155 Not the person you're responding to, but a nice chart here. https://reneweconomy.com.au/graph-day-nine-simple-charts-explain-global-carbon-budget-31961/ Most importantly: "7) Sinks are increasing with emissions As we emit more carbon dioxide by the year each of the three major sinks (atmosphere, ocean, land) are absorbing more carbon." As stated earlier, the Earth is a buffer system. Increasing CO2 is greening the planet. C3 plants benefit the most, of which a large number are food crop plants.

>>14236 The sentence doesn't end there, keep reading you can do it "Although we tend to focus on growing atmospheric carbon concentrations, ocean acidification is also hugely worrying. As the world continues to warm the future function of ocean and land sinks may come under strain"

>>14153 Don't forget US. I call those orange horse of apocalypse!

>>14114 I am sorry, I didn't know I was talking to a bloody mind reader.

>>14237 You still aren't getting it. The Earth is a buffer system. That includes the oceans.

>>14243 >>14236 i am sorry, i might have misunderstood that page... but it doesn't seem like they say it's all good that we increase CO2 levels... even if we think of it as a cycle and the planet is gonna deal with it eventually, there would be a problem if the nature couldn't react fast enough to changes caused by us. i don't care that in 100 years the levels will decrease if there are already effects in place (such as animal extinction and problems with growing crops) but as i said, i might have misunderstood it.

>>14244 The page concedes to the core argument made by climate skeptics, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc >eventually, there would be a problem if the nature couldn't react fast enough to changes That doesn't happen in a buffer system. The more you add, the smaller the effect. Diminishing returns. What you suggest is the classic lie told by the climate change crowd. That we will reach some tipping point, at which time they predict accelerating changes. Then, by the magic of climate change, the "arctic is ice free by 2013" and shortly after we turn into Venus. That does not and will never happen. It is an outright lie with no scientific supporting evidence at all. Direct observations have proven them wrong, repeatedly, for decades. There is no tipping point in a buffer system. That's the opposite of how it works.

>it's ok guys!!! the arctic won't be ice free for a decade at least. Keep carrying on, little sheep, don't let those dangerous people control you!

Again, that's not the whole sentence, keep reading, we have faith in you Same source as the essay, check out that buffer in action

dont respond to troll posters Climate change deniers are one of the three classic anti-science crew. Climate denier, antivax and flat earther. Together they derail any intelligent conversation into a discussion about postmodernism.

>>14325 scientism is literally worse than all three of those though. At least I can respect the people in those movements.

>>14326 you can respect flat earthers? I can't imagine the brain gymnastics it takes to respect one of those more than scientists.

>>14326 Scientism used to be called "fact" People with the facts rule over all. The rich will retreat into their environmental domes while the climate change deniers will rot in the streets. When some of the richest people (oil companies) on earth are suppressing climate change studies, that's evidence alone that climate change is real, on top of all the existing studies and models proving its existence. Real, physical wars are fought over oil. Millions of people have been slaughtered for oil. Why wouldn't an information war be fought over it as well?

>>14325 But flat earthers are a silly fringe group that only disrupts discussion on imageboards and in comment sections of articles. Half the people posting that stuff are trolls who don't believe it anyway. Creationists are more of a thing. Even "progressive" Canada had a closet creationist for PM recently, and he actually gagged government scientists and had funding cut for programs because of it.

>>14325 It looks to me like you are the ones who derailed the conversation about the extermination of humanity. We get it. You guys support pulling the ladder up on the developing world. You guys support bigotry >>14153 The question is about your motivations. What do you hope to gain by it? We can all see through you logical falacies.

>>13995 So you're just saying just because we are the only (known) life in our universe, it's okay for us to destroy ourselves ? Shouldn't it mean the opposite, that we need to thrive because we are the only living things and are clearly special ?

>>14337 What's wrong with bigotry?

>>14395 >destroy ourselves By greening the planet and improving crop yields. That's an odd path to destruction. >thrive By eating bugs instead of meat and eliminating 6 out of 7 people. "We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion. We need to eliminate nationalism and tribalism and become Earthlings. And as Earthlings, we need to recognize that all the other species that live on this planet are also fellow citizens and also Earthlings. This is a planet of incredible diversity of life-forms; it is not a planet of one species as many of us believe." -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society These are the sort of whack jobs who want to destroy humanity, not see it thrive.

>>14247 While I agree that the earth itself - the full ecosystem - is a "buffer system" in the way that you're talking, the range of environmental conditions in which human civilization can exist is much, much smaller than the tolerance level of the entire ecosystem, and we have been rapidly moving toward the edge of that range since the industrial revolution. We may be greening the planet, but we're destroying ourselves. Framing the issue as if the consensus opinion were the complete distruction of all life on earth is disengenuous. >>14396 Posing that sort of question in earnest is an indication that you have likely already dismissed moral arguments, so let me pose a practical alternative: bigotry incites strife, and strife accelerates entropy. Sentience (quite literally self-preserving information) is the universe's greatest weapon against entropy, and being bigoted runs counter to that.

>>14406 getting rid of certain groups is much better for preserving sentience than allowing them to remain

>>14396 >What's wrong with bigotry? Bigots use unchangeable and irrelevant life details to decide how to treat others. This is wrong to anyone who values individualism.

>>14406 It seems pretty obvious that we're not destroying ourselves. There are now 7 billion of us and growing. We engineer marvels of technology that allow us to put 20 million people in Tokyo and it all works thanks to modern water, sewage, electrical, medical, and transportation systems. We've pushed way past the edge of "environmentally sustainable" living through ingenuity. It's mathematically provable (https://www.meltingasphalt.com/interactive/going-critical/) that putting more people together, more human brain processors, into a single city machine generates more progress and innovation. Why would you suggest we stop progress, disperse, and lead humanity back to the stone age?

>>14436 >Citizen 14406, why do you wish to halt progress of the human machine? We must join together as one and forget our senses of individuality for the sake of [insert meaningless horseshit idea here, like God, dude SCIENCE, or some random phrase here] Don't you want to avoid living in the stone age? Wouldn't you rather live a life as a single, worthless cell in the human organism, with no purpose but to play your tiny and insignificant role in achieving PROGRESS sounds fun

>>14436 >it is mathematically provable that simplified models which may or may not accurately reflect a highly chaotic and high-dimensional system have this property

>>14439 the irony is you just described the only evidence climate "scientists" have ever put forward. Present Day, Present Time! AHAHAHAHAHA!

>>14454 except, you know, the mountain of evidence you can see with your own eyes showing that global average temperatures are rising, ice caps and glaciers are melting, and tropical storms are getting more frequent and deadly

>>14470 I remember that one. "Ice free in 2013" by Al Gore. Catchy tune, but it got really repetitive.

>>14436 >It seems pretty obvious that we're not destroying ourselves. There are now 7 billion of us and growing. We engineer marvels of technology that allow us to put 20 million people in Tokyo and it all works thanks to modern water, sewage, electrical, medical, and transportation systems. I'll paraphrase an old joke: a man jumps off the hundredth story of a building. Upon falling as far as the 50th story, he says, "So far, so good." Note: I'm not arguing against everything you're saying, but I am arguing against this particular mentality. >>14470 I think you're missing the thrust of the idea. The question is not "is the climate currently warming" but "will the climate either continue to warm at such a rate that we will have serious problems or warm to the point that something else is triggered that will cause serious problems?" I think many individuals tend to expect very linear relationships between variables, but a basic education in mathematical modeling shows that real relationships can be very complex and behave in unexpected/unintuitive ways. Note: I'm not putting forth an argument on the central issue, but I am putting forth an argument regarding the kinds of arguments that should be employed in the discussion of the central issue. I personally think that the problem is far too complex for me to predict the outcome and that it may be too complex for modern methods and people much smarter than myself to predict as well.

>>14482 This ad hominem is getting really repetitive. I really don't understand why everyone is so opposed to making society run more efficiently. Vastly reducing meat consumption would allow you to eliminate an entire trophic level of energy loss. But hey, let's continue to burn our corn and shovel soy into cows instead of just eating it ourselves. Not to mention people can then stop murdering sentient beings, but I don't think that argument would carry much weight with sociopaths. Electrifying transportation is also a pretty big no-brainer as far as increasing efficiency goes, but then idiots with "Prius Repellant" stickers can't roll coal anymore to own libs. muh freedumbs

>>14487 >I think you're missing the thrust of the idea. The question is not "is the climate currently warming" but "will the climate either continue to warm at such a rate that we will have serious problems or warm to the point that something else is triggered that will cause serious problems?" serious problems are already starting to show up. Seriously, at some point it stops being "is this hypothetical scenario going to happen?" and starts being "this hypothetical scenario is happening *right now*". We are currently in the second stage.

>>14541 I understand that each animal is inefficiently converting food to energy, but corn doesn't have a lot of protein. Feed it to hogs, then eat the hogs. Lots of protein. It's the same reason people eat anything instead of photosyntheticly producing energy. Photosynthesis alone isn't enough for active creatures. OTOH, your argument works against you on electric vehicles. It's more efficient to burn fuel directly and turn it into mechanical energy than to burn > mechanical > electric > transmit > charge battery > mechanical again. Your electric vehicle is adding at least 5 stages of inefficiency and wasting an enormous amount of energy. Cars weigh more than a ton. A gallon of gas is about 31000 calories. Can you move a ton 20 miles on 31000 cals personality? Modern cars are wonders of efficiency.

Some things seem inherently important, such as 1) Long-term survival of our species and the planet 2) Quality of life: why live without it? But how is increasing the number of humans inherently desirable? I perceive the opposite. It directly compromises (1) and (2). Burning our resources, polluting our environment, lowering our quality of life by leaving less resources, space, and meaningful work for each individual... All for what? Just to increase in number, mindlessly like a virus or insect. Scientific analysis of animal populations make it clear that unchecked exponential population growth results in disaster, potentially killing the whole species when the environment collapses or disease takes hold. It's nonsensical to me to keep breeding. The only arguments in favor of it are based on absurd religion like the Christians "be fruitful and multiply", and breeding in a selfish game-theoretic economic battle between the rich and the states.

>>14554 Two heads are better than one. Properly managed, same applies in billions. >unchecked population growth We have intelligence to work around this problem. We've proven it. We aren't hunter/gatherers like other animals anymore. We ascended. We manage our food supply from seed to pepperoni pizza. We immunize ourselves with vaccines. >arguments in favor of it This isn't religious or about warfare >>14436 Progress creates more progress. Once you have a steam engine, then you can have a railroad, then you can have transcontinental shipping, etc. It's like someone drawing an arbitrary line at railroad and saying, "Nope, no more progress now. You can't have shipping on this railroad. It's already too complex." Each layer is abstract to the people in the layer. The driver of the car need not know exactly how the engine is built. He just needs to know where the pedals and steering wheel are. But someone does. That's why you need more people. More layers of abstraction. A single person can't hold all the knowledge of humanity in their one head, but collectively, we make it work by distributing responsibilities.

>>14555 >Two heads are better than one. Properly managed, same applies in billions. It is extremely simple to prove that this is not a sound argument. Can the earth sustain 11e100 humans? No. It is a resource-constrained problem. We can't prove the actual number, but at some point there are too many people. Simply saying "more is better" is a nonsense argument; it is common sense that that breaks down somewhere.

>>14553 >It's more efficient to burn fuel directly and turn it into mechanical energy than to burn > mechanical > electric > transmit > charge battery > mechanical again the whole point is that at large scales, more efficient power sources like nuclear, wind, solar, etc. are viable. I'm fairly certain oil power plants are also more efficient than internal combustion engines but I might be wrong. >Can you move a ton 20 miles on 31000 cals personality? Modern cars are wonders of efficiency. I can move my body 20 miles on 3000 kcals, including dinner afterwards. Most cars weigh more than a ton. So, yeah, I would say that the human body is more efficient than a car at moving humans. American cities are built with the assumption that everyone has a car. The public transportation is soykaf. The whole concept of commuting is ridiculous, but somehow millions of people do it every day, wasting billions of calories because all the American urban planners are apparently braindead.

>>14558 https://www.livestrong.com/article/302836-how-many-calories-are-burned-during-a-marathon/ A 210lb runner uses 3593 cals to run 24 mile marathon. Rough calculation, x10. The car is more efficient. As you pointed out, most cars weigh more than a ton. New ones get > 24mpg these days. The power plant is the worst part. Efficiency is capped at 40% https://mpoweruk.com/energy_efficiency.htm ~5% lost in power transmission. Another ~20% lost in charging the electric car battery. Your EV is a huge energy waster and to top it off, EV battery production generates more CO2 than driving an ICE.

>>13995 >Do you ever get the feeling that something is wrong with people who claim we need to "save the planet" Climate "activism" is basically just a new religion. Unquestioning loyalty to the sacred premise? Check. Hysterical screeching? Check. Ignoring science and any evidence you could be wrong? Check. Imaginary good vs evil struggle? Check. Convert/behead the infidels? Check. People don't believe in God anymore but the biological circuitry that makes people do the whole religion thing is still present in human brains.

>>13995 >Do you ever get the feeling that something is wrong with people who claim we need to "save the planet" specifically at the detriment to the humans on it? The people who claim we are overpopulating. The people who say we need to start eating bugs to reduce global warming. I agree mostly, I've met some people who want to introduce a one-child policy and castrate everyone from early on. If people then want to have children, they must partake in a test, to check if they're suitable as parents. All that for environmental reasons. They also wanted to establish "democratic socialism", but with brain washing in school. >The way I see it, the universe is full of planets, but only one of them provably has life on it. Us. There's nothing so important about the rock we float on, other than the fact that we float on it. In the vast, impossibly large space we drift through, we've yet to detect any signal or sign of any life other than our own... but the important thing is we need to save the rock we're on? Depopulate? Have fewer kids and eat insects of poor nutritional value? I think we need to save the environment, but the current social climate is a result of green populism. The green parties used to accuse right-wing nationalist parties of obtaining votes by instilling fear into people. Yet they are doing the same. Some younger school students vocal for the fridays for future movement believe that armageddon is happening within the next few years, if we don't stop all emissions in this instant. Humans are resilient tho. We won't die from higher temperature or rising sea levels. We'll find a way around it. Humans live pretty much everywhere on earth, in more different environments, than any higher animal. We should save the environment for the sake of the environment. And by going zero emissions, western nations will just end up being taken over by countries that are ruthless and care first and foremost about their own success. Good luck fighting for the environment, when China is the governing body.

People, at least the higher up ones, who claim that "we" need to depopulate are lying to you. Those (((people))) have their own country to live in, so they don't care about yours, assuming you live in a western nation. The real overpopulation comes from India(1,339,000,000) and China(1,386,000,000). So yes, the world is overpopulated, but it's likely not your country's population doing the damage.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/597kpd/new-report-suggests-high-likelihood-of-human-civilization-coming-to-an-end-in-2050 Wish we had more time to have fun with the idea of colonization of planets, or to appreciate the downward trend of overpopulation because life actually is getting a bit hard to manage for most But nah once nature gives a good shake to a few millions of people we'll take things seriously, rightfulyl so. Asimov predicted we would cut the crap not because we are now a great civilization capable of achieving such things, but because it's either that or extinction. We'll live to see that tale, maybe.

>>14567 210 lbs is pretty heavy. And you didn't say what we're optimizing for. I assumed the point was to get a person from point A to point B, not transporting a heavy load. In that case a human or human-powered vehicle(probably bicycles) are the most efficient choice. Driving your car for the sole purpose of moving your self is inefficient.

>>14579 24 miles per gallon. 1 gallon is 8 cups. 3 miles per cup. 1 cup is 16 tablespoons. This car travels one mile on about 5 tablespoons of gas. The car weighs more than 10 times your weight. You're saying you can run one mile using less than half a tablespoon of calories. I think you're overestimating your own efficiency. This is why the people who want to "save the planet" want to remove you. You're even less efficient than the ebil cars they hate so much.

There are non-violent ways to reuduce the population. Females attaining high levels of education are correlated with population reduction. Most people I know add very little value to society, especially the most "successful". One fella would legally harass realtors in escrow and that would be enough pressure to easily land a settlement of at least 10 grand or more. He died a millionaire and the lands involved in the deals he settled on were turned into hotels and golf courses. Water from the surrounding farmlands was diverted to fill swimming pools and grow invasive grasses. We are entirely dependent on imports where I live as the farmland is being systematically destroyed and replaced with useless structures full of useless people who suck resources out of the land and give nothing back. When the global transport infrastructure goes down, there will be a couple million hungry, thirsty people living in a place which has lost most of it's water and 40-70% of it's arable lands. So at least where I live, the writing is clearly on the wall that if we want to keep living, we need to start making changes now and it is easy to get support for such things. I don't know what y'all are smoking though: >Rising sea levels wont kill us all >humans will adapt >warm planet ain't soykaf Shit hits the fan fast. Rising sea levels salinating your farm lands and contaminating your aquifer? Congratulations, you are now a climate refugee. Hopefully you can find a country who is willing to let you live in a tent at the border while they process the other 100,000 people in line in front of you. Or maybe the floods have shut down the ports and made it impossible to efficiently move oil around, and now you can't even afford to leave your awful wasteland because gasoline costs $85 a gallon. Now is the time to develop sustainable systems because at the moment, it is fairly easy to iteratively improve on failures. 50 years from now? 80 years from now? I doubt the margins for error will be so forgiving.

>>14587 >humans will adapt There is only one road to salvation (my road). Another critical ingredient for any religion.

>>14587 >Smart women don't have children So you're saying African people are dumb, unlike the super intelligent euros and Americans. More implied bigotry from the "save the planet" crowd.

>>14612 Not him, but yes. Not just because of pic related. (Bonus points if you get the reference in my pic name.) However, look at their history. They spent thousands of years banging rocks and bones against tree stumps, while Europe advanced in the trivium. Africa sold their slaves obtained from trival wars to America, who used those slaves for more than just sex and minor gardening. So, yes: African people, on average, are dumber than the "super intelligent" white people. What are Africans doing now? They're still having tribal warfare. The only difference is that now they're doing it in more than just mud huts and we sell them weapons to do so. Is that not enough for you? Look into Rhodesia. Look what they accomplished in the short time they were allowed to exist... Fast forward a few decades and look at what (post-Rhodesia) Zimbabwe's Mugabe did. He kicked out white farmers. A few years later, they were in ruin and he was begging for them to come back. I highly recommend that you do not try to play that card. The race card is not a winning card in a place you can't just shame someone off the 'debate stage'. >inb4 IQ isnt a good standard for intelligence No, but it is all we have and it does have at least some basis for how prosperous an individual/group could be. So, until you create some system that works well in reality, we may have to deal with using IQ. source for image: https://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html source of that source for the image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality

>>14613 Please note, I am being facetious in my usage of "super intelligent" and I understand that "thousands of years" is hyperbole.

>>14612 >females attaining higher education are correlated with population reduction So what part of this observation is based on race? "Higher education" is not shorthand for "special place just for white people".

>>14612 "Higher education" also is not a shorthand for "special place just for smart people". Just because someone goes through college does not automatically make them smart.

>>14613 >However, look at their history. Yes. Do that. And remember, your "super intelligence" still can't explain how they "banged rocks" that big together.

>>14625 Not him, and i don't claim i know, but using tens of thousands of slaves for decades long really makes up for some working power that should look like something like that, or the transsiberian express, or something really magnificient.

>>14625 >super intelligence I already mentioned I was being facetious. >muh pyramids Yeah. They also had batteries and computers, you can't leave that out. Egypt is also arabic, which is a different race. The arabs were fantastic with math, this is widely understood (and accepted.) I'm not going to pretend I know how they did it, but it wasn't some tribal african soykafting out a pyramid. Please don't try to pretend you didn't understand me, because we both know I'm clearly talking about black Africans. I should not have to say so explicitly.

>>14633 Slaves didn't build the pyramids, it's a myth perpetuated by Hollywood movies. They were build by well-paid, qualified workers and volunteers. Don't they teach that in High-School these days?

>>14635 Then why they found all those ruins of slave shelters around pyramids? >>14634 Gee, are you bad at history. The original inhabitants of Egypt wasn't arabs, they conquered it in the middle age, the first kaliphate, which conquered the whole of Northern Africa, then half of the Iberian penninsula (which is nowadays Spain and was part of the Frank empire back then). The descendants of original egyptian people actually became christian, they are the copt christians nowadays.

>>14636 Sure. We do not know who the original inhabitants of Egypt were. We're both just speculating what race they were. We learned that the pyramids are older than previously thought. All we know is that it wasn't black. They seem to be treated as their own race of people, the Egyptians. But even if we just accepted that they were black africans, they would be the exception. Not the rule. It's still null and void, and I am still not wrong. This conversation went well past it's point. My entire point is that (Black) Africans, on average, are less intelligent than whites, asians, etc. That is all.

>>14637 Yeah, they are, much less intelligent, actually there was a very talented gorilla that has higher iq than a few black african countries' average IQ(of humans). (that is around 70 aka what is considered seriously mentally retarded here). But that is common knowledge we see every day, the case of the egyptians is much more interesting for me. What do you mean by "we learned the pyramids are older"? Is the 14C analysis wrong and there is a proof that is stronger than the isotope analysis?

>>14637 Oh maybe you wanted to say the corpse of the pharaoh is replaced by a graverobber x hundred years later, and that's why the isotope analysis is wrong? Yeah maybe that could happen.

>>14553 yeah, not much protein in corn, but you conveniently left out soy from the comment you were replying to. legumes and wheat have lots of protein eletrifying transport is a much better way of seeing efficiency gains across the board, and for moving away from fossil fuels entirely. with ICV, you have to upgrade every single vehicle to see improvements in efficiency. with electric infrastructure, you only need to upgrade the generation points. this makes it easier to switch to renewable sources and have that effect propagate across the entire grid. not to mention you aren't dumping a bunch of waste energy in the form of exhaust and loss from braking (electrics usually have some form of regen braking) yeah, cars weigh a lot, but do people really need that much weight? realistically a lot more people should be biking or taking mass transit. unfortunately white flight and the murican dream lead to massive suburband sprawl where everyone has convinced themselves they need an 8 passenger SUV to get by. even if you're dead set on using fossil fuels, EVs still might be the way to go depending on your local power generation: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/9/2690/htm

>>14580 stop spreading bullshit here, this one even has a pretty picture to make it easy for you. http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/humanpower1.html

>>14642 At least try to provide a better citation so you don't make the rest of us look like idiots. https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/blog/climate-impacts-biking-vs-driving

>>14580 >half a tablespoon of calories

>>14642 Your graph supports what I said. The car, by weight moved, is more efficient. You simply didn't adjust for weight, because you're not very good at simple math, or you think we're not. Half a tablespooon. You can't beat that machine efficiency, human.

>>14649 Based on >>14643 (see image attached), cars consume 3.3/.11=30 units of biker energy per distance, not weight adjusted Average sedan weights ~2.9 tons (see image). Average male + bike is ~220 pounds, and cost 1 unit biker energy to push. 2.9*2000=5800 lbs 5800 lbs / 30 units biker energy = 193.33 Pounds per unit biker energy Thus, a human biker is 220/193.33 = 1.14 aka ~14% more efficient than a sedan that gets 25 mpg. I'll admit you can find cars that likely outperform humans, and that less obese people on bikes are also losing out. But the numbers are closer than you may like to admit, tin-man !

>>14650 I'll agree with you that it is close, but I still give the car the crown because of the speed. It's not only a wonder of efficiency with fuel, it's a lot more aerodynamicly efficient than we are too. Humans shine because of our multipurpose nature, not because we are a fast efficient way to move weight.