Not to mention while peddling population reduction propaganda on the platform of the dude that had so many kids he had to start labeling them with serial numbers and coincidentally wants to colonise another (uninhabitable) planet.
Not to mention while peddling population reduction propaganda on the platform of the dude that had so many kids he had to start labeling them with serial numbers and coincidentally wants to colonise another (uninhabitable) planet.
Doesn't appear to be population control propaganda, he's saying Capitalism bad. How he defines Capitalism isn't clear, could be anything from /[non-state controlled manufacturing] to /[the west], or if they're particularly misinformed they could be using it synonymously with loose regulation, corruption, and monopoly.
He's not peddling it he's refuting it. Did you even reading comprehension skill
it's saturday
I quoted an article already but here's another:
we humans are a significant contributor to global warming. But, in reality, the CO2 we’re breathing out is part of a natural cycle, by which our bodies convert carbohydrates from CO2-absorbing plants into energy, plus water and CO2. As such, we’re not adding any extra CO2.
which fully supports your statement
Unless a significant part of your diet is coal butter, yes.
fossil fuels are natural, the burning of them in the quantities we do is not.
I thought fossil fuel evolved from the anaerobic decay of dinosaurs and prehistoric plankton mixing with sediment which put it under intense heat and pressure.
evolved is the wrong term here. Fossil fuels are formed. This is a meaningful distinction because both plants and animals are evolved and had time to adapt to the presence of the other to create a symbiotic relationship.
Fossil fuels formation is a geological process. There is no cycle, and it is a process not dependent on living things to work the process.
To be fair, it is a number I would be curious about because I just want to know. So I looked up the article:
https://www.sciencefocus.com/...
be mad; read headlines; parrot social media; here's another quote:
In contrast, burning fossil fuels like coal releases CO2 which has been locked up for millions of years, producing a net contribution to global warming.
The article is literally blaming capitalism
Even more important context, right at the top of the article:
Asked by: Peter Thatcher, Lancaster
This was a response to a reader-submitted question to a science magazine.
Everyone raging in the comments here has just blindly read the headline and the deliberately-misleading social post attached, and they’ve decided to be mad instead of using even an ounce of critical thinking. Drives me crazy how much people seem to want to be angry.
Millenials and Gen Z are helping to combat this problem by having fewer kids. And yet, Billionaires complain about that, too. Lol.
It’s not a problem
Yep, everyone at or post the 'millenial generation' have caught on the avocado toast bullcrap.
dont you mean no-kids.
If we got rid of the rich that would mean less people breathing. The solution is obvious.
Well, the only way to "get rid of the rich" is the widespread disbursement of wealth, so actually no.
That's just typical capitalism. The factors of production are privately owned. It's not a free market, but capitalism does naturally consolidate power like this.
It's not "capitalism", it's corporations with zero governnental or moral limits.
It's greed, manifest.
morals have no place in a well written legal system
If we get rid of human breathing we will eventually get rid of man-made climate change.
No, no, he's got a point.
Did you read the article?
Near 100% I'd say.
The are trying to make reducing carbon seem unrealistic
You know what, I think smoking Crack is a gold standard for, "the media." It's quite a crack addict thing to ponder, ya know? How much does human breathing contribute to climate change?
According to the article: it doesn't, CO2 is part of a natural carbon cycle predating industries.
I was drinking heavily at 21 and was in tip-top physical condition.
I don't think theres a socioeconomic system that allows 9 billion people to live a modern life on earth without climate change. I vote we renew the USAID program that shipped condoms to the middle east and we make college free for women everywhere, that should about fix it.
EDIT: And normalize meat only being an occasional meal instead of twice daily.
You should work for the New York Times lmao.
Known Tankie bootsucker, licker, tickler Alcholicorn accusing me of Propaganda, how quaint.
Wait you weren't doing a bit, imitating a NYT columnist whitewashing fascism?
Alright, I'll bite, how is free medical and education (and importantly taxing industry and the wealthy) "whitewashing fascism"?
While the premise from the headline is ridiculous, considering the contribution to CO2 emissions caused by human metabolism is not.
Humans don't have a good efficiency, compared to e.g. a electric motor.
Also, the "fuel" used by humans itself typically already comes with a gigantic CO2 burden.
That's also the reason that biking without electric assistance is not quite as carbon neutral as most people believe.
Putting it this way: The primarily meat-based overconsumption prevalent in many western countries offers many opportunities to significantly reduce CO2.
A single Big Mac can power a gaming PC for 2 hours, a Tesla for ~2.5 miles, or a moderately active human for 6 hours.
It could also take an e bike anywhere from 25-50 miles depending on the rider, terrain, and other factors.
I don't know if I'd say we're "inefficient"...but we also don't carry around 1000lbs of batteries...even in America.
@lemmy.ca
Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz
go to feed...
@lemmy.ca
Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz
go to feed...
It’s really hard to listen to blue checked accounts posting on social media owned by a trillionaire.
save