Cars are not inherently necessary. But we built around them and made them necessary. That can change. We control how we build and what assumptions we make.
Come down here and say that. When you live 500km from the nearest corner store, a car is necessary.
Like it or not, not everywhere can be the perfect picture of a modern European city. Australia is too big and too sparsely populated for public transport to get to everyone, its not financially viable. Heck, many major arterial highways weren’t even paved roads until the last 20 years or so.
Cities should not need automobiles, I agree. But the food will not get to the cities without them. And the people who live in the middle of the country and make the food won’t survive without driving to town a couple of times a month either.
Yep, cars are not necessary (esp what the vast majority does: one person in a car build for four or more). Public and freight transport would totally work.
The problem is mathematically it just doesn’t work. Humans are too good at reproducing. We’d be back in force before too long.
No, the only way is more death note style, taking out billionaires and some of their bootlicking buddies, and those who put profit over the planet’s health. It’s perfectly possible for the rest of us to patch things up—we almost did it with the ozone. (Until guess who decided they wanted to throw money around to force us to stop.)
I think we humans have grown to a population size where anyone’s profit hurting the planets health should be stopped. We need to take protecting the planet’s (in some ways fragile) ecosystem as serious as we take protecting children against abuse for example. Future generations will have to learn or we will find out together what fucking around gets us.
If the half of the population includes the part that owns cars perhaps, but the carbon footprint of a person varries greatly. In general the more money someone has the higher the burden they are on the climate.
Idk, I feel like targeting living beings is different than targeting structures, even though I know a sudden lack of refined oil would lead to death. I’m just convinced they’ll never stop until their own heat deaths.
I’d go for the quick and painless snap over the long drawn out biotic crisis caused by the removal of a key resource but that’s only because I’m a humanitarian.
The Leftovers is a HBO series about the aftermath of a mysterious event where 5% of the global population disappears. Has nothing to do with climate change or anything, but your suggestions reminds me of this. No matter how little or how many people you snap away, the people left behind will be mourning their loss. Don’t forget also the evil people are someones child or perhaps parent. They have friends, colleagues, relatives etc. You can do an imaginary quick snap that is painless to the person disappearing, but even if you could I don’t think it can be painless for the ones you don’t kill.
4 billion instantaneously without even a chance is just too much for me. At least with the refineries I can lie to myself and say I gave everyone a chance by not immediately removing people from existence.
If I could snap my fingers and all the world’s billionaires disappear I would, or oil refineries. Not people though. Humans aren’t the virus.
Snap for all the cars to disappear!
No. People would starve to death. Cars are necessary. Not everyone lives in the CBD of the capital city.
Cars are not inherently necessary. But we built around them and made them necessary. That can change. We control how we build and what assumptions we make.
Come down here and say that. When you live 500km from the nearest corner store, a car is necessary.
Like it or not, not everywhere can be the perfect picture of a modern European city. Australia is too big and too sparsely populated for public transport to get to everyone, its not financially viable. Heck, many major arterial highways weren’t even paved roads until the last 20 years or so.
Cities should not need automobiles, I agree. But the food will not get to the cities without them. And the people who live in the middle of the country and make the food won’t survive without driving to town a couple of times a month either.
You do know people lived in Australia for tens of thousands of years before the invention of cars.
Yep, cars are not necessary (esp what the vast majority does: one person in a car build for four or more). Public and freight transport would totally work.
Getting rid of half the population or half the refineries would accomplish the same thing right?
The problem is mathematically it just doesn’t work. Humans are too good at reproducing. We’d be back in force before too long.
No, the only way is more death note style, taking out billionaires and some of their bootlicking buddies, and those who put profit over the planet’s health. It’s perfectly possible for the rest of us to patch things up—we almost did it with the ozone. (Until guess who decided they wanted to throw money around to force us to stop.)
I think we humans have grown to a population size where anyone’s profit hurting the planets health should be stopped. We need to take protecting the planet’s (in some ways fragile) ecosystem as serious as we take protecting children against abuse for example. Future generations will have to learn or we will find out together what fucking around gets us.
If the half of the population includes the part that owns cars perhaps, but the carbon footprint of a person varries greatly. In general the more money someone has the higher the burden they are on the climate.
Oil is used in the production and transportation of food.
Also fertilizer.
And the plastic that keeps the medical system running.
My point is only that not every person on the world has equal access to those things.
My point is those oil refineries keep a lot of people alive.
Be a fanboy then, I think they’re doing a lot of damage despite that.
Not to mention the oil CEOs are directly responsible for delaying and inhibiting the transition to green energy
Idk, I feel like targeting living beings is different than targeting structures, even though I know a sudden lack of refined oil would lead to death. I’m just convinced they’ll never stop until their own heat deaths.
Just the collapse of the medical system alone due to the missing plastics would kill millions.
Aye, so its a rock and a hard place then. At least when it comes to solutions like these.
I’d go for the quick and painless snap over the long drawn out biotic crisis caused by the removal of a key resource but that’s only because I’m a humanitarian.
The Leftovers is a HBO series about the aftermath of a mysterious event where 5% of the global population disappears. Has nothing to do with climate change or anything, but your suggestions reminds me of this. No matter how little or how many people you snap away, the people left behind will be mourning their loss. Don’t forget also the evil people are someones child or perhaps parent. They have friends, colleagues, relatives etc. You can do an imaginary quick snap that is painless to the person disappearing, but even if you could I don’t think it can be painless for the ones you don’t kill.
4 billion instantaneously without even a chance is just too much for me. At least with the refineries I can lie to myself and say I gave everyone a chance by not immediately removing people from existence.
You can make plastics out of corn and soybean oil
They don’t refine oil for people to consume it, they refine oil to generate shareholder value.
Do they just dump it in a big hole and profit?
Probably, I don’t know.