It’s really hard to listen to blue checked accounts posting on social media owned by a trillionaire.
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.
Not familiar with the cesspool, thought that was a retweet or something
He’s not peddling it he’s refuting it. Did you even reading comprehension skill
Well, you missed a word and a comma, so perhaps we’re not all perfect. Happy Sunday Ricky
I’m certain Ricky hasn’t missed them even a little bit.
He’s not missing it he’s omitting it. Did you even reading comprehension skill
Reading comprehension: you literally wrote the word “missed” in the comment I replied to. 😅
Since it may have gone over your head, my previous comment was wordplay. You can have a pass if English isn’t your first language.
My last 2 were tongue in chique too my friend.
And in my experience people width English as their fist language are notoriously bad at it.
🙃
it’s saturday
If people were reasonable, Twitter would have died years ago.
Nothing. Humans evolved with plants to complete the carbon cycle. Fossil fuels did not evolve, they are burned.
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
So human breathing is net zero because we’re just emitting carbon dioxide trapped in the food we just planted?
Correct. We are heterotroughs (CnH2n [different sugars and carbs] + O2 -> CO2 + H2O) and pants are autotroughs (CO2 + H2O + sunlight -> CnH2n [different sugars and carbs] + O2) we are complements and complete the carbon cycle.
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.
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/planet-earth/how-much-does-human-breathing-contribute-to-climate-change
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.
Thanks. Keep up the dissecting. It is an important tool to lift the “ragefull” propagandistic discussions back to a reasonable exchange of facts and opinions.
No, no they have a point. I feel like if we stopped say roughly 3,428 people from breathing that the world would start to heal.
Looking at the list by cities no wonder they are losing their shit because of Mamdani.
Erm, I dont think its only the people but the power structures they created. So there is a fair amount of dismantling that has to happen no matter what.
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.
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
- Mr. John B. (Bourgeois) Capitalist
We’re barely capitalist, it’s all scheming and legal privileges and crime at this point. Even capitalism requires an adherence to a ruleset and the rulers we have do not like following any rules.
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.
Near 0
They’re not desperate. Their system still works and trickle money up.
What they’re doing is preparing you to make monthly payments for air breezing plans.
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”?
Starting from a premise of “There’s too many humans”, blaming a poorer country for having too many children, then cleaning it up with things palatable to the average NYT reader is exactly how they do it.
The premise is the premise whether you like it or not, pal. You Tankies have been really weird about this issue ever since China, the largest polluter on earth, announced a reversal of their population policies and started promoting growth.
Its a fascist premise; Malthus was wrong when he did the same math 200 years ago. Turns out more people can make better use of resources, and the famine he was attributing to population growth and immorality was simply caused by capitalism.
If we get rid of human breathing we will eventually get rid of man-made climate change.
No, no, he’s got a point.
This is easy. Just stop breathing.
And that shit is called science focus… It hurts.
Did you read the article?
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.
