|
Pinball posted:So, other than becoming vegan or vegetarian, what can a regular person do to help slow climate change? Not have children? Yeah, I've been wrestling with that myself lately. The best option might be to see what you can do in your neighborhood: volunteer to help clean up the place, drive less if possible, write to local politicians, donate to the right causes when possible, and see what you can do to reduce your own footprint. I got rid of my car. It's not all bad news; there are a lot of interesting new technologies that are already coming out of this, and I'm tracking several different projects that could be big business in the next few years, like the burgeoning algae industry or CO2 capture. It's pretty obvious at this point that if we do somehow avoid the worst-case scenario, it probably won't be through political will, but through the commercialization of CO2 sequestration and the move away from fossil fuels. Basically, we're going to have to make a carbon-neutral future profitable, rather than doing it simply because it's the right thing to do. Either that, or the moment Miami or Manhattan starts sinking, some prominent denier's going to get hung off a bridge and we'll have to get things done that way. It's going to be an interesting few decades regardless. This thread's heavy on the gloom and doom, and not without cause, but even a quick jaunt through the pages of Popular Science can give you some room for hope on the subject. I think urban algae canopies are particularly cool, and while I got poo poo on pretty hard for bringing it up, if this pays off, the sheer cool factor of making smog into jewelry could go a long way towards commercializing CO2 capture.
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:20 |
|
|
Pinball posted:Not have children? How about make sure the generation that comes after us is clued up on this poo poo. Most of us as kids had the ozone layer specter, whereas our folks and their folks were more concerned about the looming nuclear specter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
68k posted:Regardless of that article, some of your points are fine, but honestly I would work on trying to deliver them in a much less obnoxious way. I've read the Klein book, and you are mischaracterizing the discussion by throwing around "ATOMZ," "glorious revolution," "lol hippies," "drugs maaaaan," etc. Yes, I absolutely wrote this in the style of "look at that stupid poo poo lol" rather than "let's have a discussion wherein I try to convince the author his views on the glorious revolution aren't helping". I should perhaps have made clearer that all the stuff about GMOs bad and ATOMZ bad is mainly about the terrible essay rather than the Naomi Klein book since the author pretty much says outright he's completely against both quite independent of his views on the environmental damage from these things, at which point I don't consider the guy to be worth taking seriously at all. Pinball posted:So, other than becoming vegan or vegetarian, what can a regular person do to help slow climate change? Not have children? If, as the OP says, we are far beyond saving, how do we come to terms with that? Got to be honest, it's hard not to become paralyzed by anxiety when looking at just how incredibly screwed we are. (And I don't have much hope that the upcoming summit will do much.) If you want to personally adjust your lifestyle, then the most important things being not to burn overly much fossil fuels and not to eat to much beef (pork and chicken and fish are less bad). More generally, don't be a terrible NIMBY, be aware that organic farming is not always helpful in cases where intensive farming and particularly greenhouses and vertical farms have a lower footprint and more easily manageable pollution, educate yourself and others about why it's important to work against climate change and protect habitats, vote for/write to politicians to get more nuclear and renewables going, if you have money to donate then donate towards either conservation and energy (e.g. the Weinberg foundation, which promotes the use of Thorium power, or a renewable energy option less insane than solar loving roadways) or towards social causes that are directly related to climate change mitigation and conservation (e.g. women's education and medical care that reduce birth rate). You can also join a conservation society and do reasonable things in there while staying home when everyone goes protest against Monsanto and nucular power. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Aug 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 08:49
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Don't have kids, drive less or use public transportation, and educate yourself about climate change so that you can rhetorically disembowel deniers who speak about the topic in public. Changing the public discourse starts with making sure that the people on the wrong side of history are harried every time they open their mouths.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 09:45
|
|
|
As useful as it might be in medium to long-term, carbon capture provides an "out" for politicians forced to make difficult choices. Decide that a 2.0 degree rise (which stands a good chance of being pretty loving dangerous) is, gee, just too tough? Full steam ahead! Future technology will suck all of that carbon out of the atmosphere. Don't worry! If that does't work? Well, we can always put a bunch of poo poo in the atmosphere and hope for the best.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 09:52
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Pointing out this terrible terrible essay on why capital E ideological ~ecology~ (which even from the description the essay's author gives is only loosely related to the study of organisms and how they interact with their biotic and abiotic environment) I also commented on in the Energy thread. Who are these people and why do you find them notable enough to post here? As far as I can tell its just some random blog of nobodies, and I can assure here on something awful we've gone over the leftist anti-science crowd enough that I think we give them way too much credit for influencing real life policy wrt Nuclear power or GM foods. I guess I don't really understand the worth of getting all shook about random hippie blogs on the internet when they're far down the list of biggest threats with regards to the climate. quote:In the context of the climate change thread, additionally, I think the people insisting on such a The thing is though, at every front capitalism seems to be probably the single major force preventing serious action been taken on the issue and nullifying any gains that have been made. Call me a pipedreaming commie if you must but it seems almost Unreal at this point in time, after decades have gone by with gently caress all happening and sheepish moves towards serious action only beginning, while we're facing down the barrel of a gun, that we don't seriously look at our economic systems and ask what has to change to meet the problem. Capitalism, especially in its current form, seems to be the cause of the problem, if we can't grapple with that then I hope our savior technology comes soon and fast. I keep seeing this caricature of leftist position put forward in the thread, the 'time' issue, where leftists apparently are undermining action against climate change by focusing on destroying Capitalism and ignoring everything else. While I sympathize that the 'Revolution is just around the corner!' crowd are annoying, I don't know what loving planet people are living on where major left wing movements or parties are willing to fundamentally challenge capitalism in a major way especially on climate change. if anything Environmentalism seemed to spend the last decade trying to get business on board and it didn't lead to poo poo that meant serious impact on emissions, instead we got green re-branding so BP and the like have a flower-logo and are 'Beyond Petroleum' and lots of hot air. The cheap and easy options are getting harder and harder to achieve as the situation deteriorates, compromises are constantly being made about how much emissions can be released and what degree of warming is deemed acceptable, it seems to me abundantly clear that a totally wrecked planet is on the cards now if we don't constrain capitalism soon, I don't see why we should treat putting a clamp on the neoliberal crap as more in conflict with preventing the worst of Climate Change than basically everything that's happened so far. Additionally the glorious revolution stuff is ridiculous, there is zero reason there can't be a move towards a non-capitalist society accompanied by whatever needs to be done to mitigate or prevent Climate Change, at this point in my life its seems like a better bet that business as usual. 68k posted:Regardless of that article, some of your points are fine, but honestly I would work on trying to deliver them in a much less obnoxious way. I've read the Klein book, and you are mischaracterizing the discussion by throwing around "ATOMZ," "glorious revolution," "lol hippies," "drugs maaaaan," etc.  ATOMZ and  HIPPIES bullshit doesn't help at all, since obviously anti-nuclear sentiments penetrate deep as a result of its associations with Nuclear warfare, horrible pollution, Fukushima and the Chernobyl disasters and not just some hippie conspiracy. If we want to make it more acceptable then we need to work on being approachable and educational in a way that's not belittling or smug, tempting though it can be when posting in an environment where a lot of people agree on the issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 10:56
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:As useful as it might be in medium to long-term, carbon capture provides an "out" for politicians forced to make difficult choices. Decide that a 2.0 degree rise (which stands a good chance of being pretty loving dangerous) is, gee, just too tough? Full steam ahead! Future technology will suck all of that carbon out of the atmosphere. Don't worry! If that does't work? Well, we can always put a bunch of poo poo in the atmosphere and hope for the best. I agree that carbon sequestration is a copout. It fails to get at the heart of whats happening. Energy use has been growing at an insane pace for 150 years and our entire economic system is based on its continued growth. A stop to economic growth is viewed as a complete disaster and a completely unacceptable scenario; but growth can't continue forever. Really at this point the question is not if we'll have to revise our economic system, its how much damage will be done before we're forced to. Every realistic mitigation proposal avoids reducing growth at all costs. Sequestration, renewables, sulfer seeding, iron seeding, etc. All of the plans are designed so that we can continue an ever expanding program of resource consumption. Salt Fish fucked around with this message at 10:59 on Aug 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 10:57
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:I agree that carbon sequestration is a copout. It fails to get at the heart of whats happening. Energy use has been growing at an insane pace for 150 years and our entire economic system is based on its continued growth. A stop to economic growth is viewed as a complete disaster and a completely unacceptable scenario; but growth can't continue forever. Really at this point the question is not if we'll have to revise our economic system, its how much damage will be done before we're forced to. Energy and growth has been decoupled for a while now - US and EU energy use is less now than it was 10 years ago. Increasing energy production mainly comes from China which is incidentally also building a bunch of nuke and renewable energy. They just can't build it fast enough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 11:50
|
|
|
68k posted:Regardless of that article, some of your points are fine, but honestly I would work on trying to deliver them in a much less obnoxious way. I've read the Klein book, and you are mischaracterizing the discussion by throwing around "ATOMZ," "glorious revolution," "lol hippies," "drugs maaaaan," etc. No, he's right. The article is appealing to pseudoscientific fearmongering and nothing more. Anyone who tries to use scare tactics like bringing up GMOs as 'Frankenstiens' and 'Advocating nuclear power for nuclear powers sake alone' is talking out of their rear end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No, he's right. The article is appealing to pseudoscientific fearmongering and nothing more. I should have been more clear that I wasn't really responding to that article, but rather his lumping in of the Klein book (and the legitimate discussion about the relationship of capitalism and climate disaster) with that lovely blog. The examination of that relationship shouldn't be associated with "hippies" or leftist anti-science folks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
Looks like Monday will be one of those days that make the insane people on both sides mad. I can't wait 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
Pinball posted:So, other than becoming vegan or vegetarian, what can a regular person do to help slow climate change? Not have children? If, as the OP says, we are far beyond saving, how do we come to terms with that? Got to be honest, it's hard not to become paralyzed by anxiety when looking at just how incredibly screwed we are. (And I don't have much hope that the upcoming summit will do much.) Don't have a child. Do your best to be eco-conscious and all that jazz, but the greatest two things you can do to have an impact as a first world citizen is 1) vote always and be vocal as poo poo to your congresscritter about your views and 2) don't have any children.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
Since this thread is getting rather old and people seem to want to discuss the issue, would people be interested in starting a new one that focuses more on solutions to climate change? I know that there's a verity of perspectives on that, ranging from pessimism to primitivism, so if people want to write up concise summaries of a position they have for a new OP, I'd be willing to work on consolidating them and merging them. It's also pretty clear that people aren't exactly reading even a few pages of this thread before posting, so I doubt it'll be missed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 09:33
|
|
|
Start fresh. Climate change isn't stopping and it isn't a hoax so maybe a thread dedicated to adaptation and mitigation is now apropos, something other than "No kids, die alone."
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Looks like Monday will be one of those days that make the insane people on both sides mad. Looks like it leaked: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/08/02/obama_to_impose_steeper_emissions_cuts_than_expected_in_climate_change_plan.html quote:Although the draft proposal had first called for a 30 percent decline in carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 2030 when compared to 2005, Obama will now call for a 32 percent drop. And initial calls for 22 percent of a power plant’s generating capacity to come from renewable sources was increased to 28 percent, details NPR.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
A new thread would be appropriate I think, there's been an extreme amount of new data posted in this thread (peer reviewed and not  ) since it started, and I've definitely learned alot from it but over a long period of time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
I would like a new thread as well, please. The OP for this one dates back to 2011. Now to mitigate climate change, I say we burn everything down and then follow Thoreau's example by rejecting all luxury and then go living in tiny 10' x 15' cabins out in the woods.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Kenzie posted:I would like a new thread as well, please. The OP for this one dates back to 2011. I don't think burning everything would be an effective climate change mitigation technique.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
How are u posted:Don't have a child. I don't think "stop having children" is the best thing for evironmentally concious people to do, assuming the continuation of the human race is the ultimate goal here. (Though if climate change deniers were to stop, we might get somewhere) Voting is about all any average person can do of any significance (voting with your wallet can count)
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
TheBlackVegetable posted:I don't think "stop having children" is the best thing for evironmentally concious people to do, assuming the continuation of the human race is the ultimate goal here. (Though if climate change deniers were to stop, we might get somewhere) Please don't act like its not hilariously unlikely that the human race will go extinct due to every person on earth voluntarily not having kids.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
There's definitely benefit to be had in humanity at large having fewer kids overall. It's unfortunate the topic is argued so drat hamhandedly that you've got nothing but strawmen doing the actual arguing anymore. It's a pretty abstract concept too, since you're going to run into the nattering nabobs of practicality who act like things like contraception education initiatives and planning outreach don't lower birth rates since they aren't actively licensing pregnancies or poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I don't think burning everything would be an effective climate change mitigation technique. OK then, I've got this. So instead of burning everything, let's tear everything down and then cannibalize the wood to build our tiny cabins in the woods. It would be perfect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:There's definitely benefit to be had in humanity at large having fewer kids overall. It's unfortunate the topic is argued so drat hamhandedly that you've got nothing but strawmen doing the actual arguing anymore. It's a pretty abstract concept too, since you're going to run into the nattering nabobs of practicality who act like things like contraception education initiatives and planning outreach don't lower birth rates since they aren't actively licensing pregnancies or poo poo. The problem is the "benefits" of voluntarily reducing birth rates via activists not having kids will take far too long to have any meaningful impact on climate change. "Not having kiddos" might have been good advice a few decades ago, but it's far far too little too late. It's also a purely mitigating future potential emissions, while other climate mitigation techniques (like the power plant rules being announced Monday) will do more in the next decade than 'not having kids' would in the next decade while at the same time reducing the carbon emissions of existing humans and industry. Not having kids doesn't do anything to reduce the existing too high emissions. Kenzie posted:OK then, I've got this. So instead of burning everything, let's tear everything down and then cannibalize the wood to build our tiny cabins in the woods. It would be perfect. Are we all moving to Canada and Russia too? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Climate change is more of a multidecadal issue that needs long term solutions in addition to not building coal plants, things like contraceptive access and planning education are kind of like the free spot on the bingo card since most first world societies do it as a matter of social gold rather than environmental. Here in the US we're a little hosed up though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The problem is the "benefits" of voluntarily reducing birth rates via activists not having kids will take far too long to have any meaningful impact on climate change. "Not having kiddos" might have been good advice a few decades ago, but it's far far too little too late. Even a baby will likely increase the amount of CO2 a household produces by a significant amount, and as somebody gets older and their needs increase it will go up. Additionally having a kid will make it harder to operate in an environmentally conscious manner and still be a good parent, having a car or good air conditioning and stuff like that becomes more important when trying to raise a family especially with the way family life in America has operated for a long time. As I said before if your so fixated on this "purely mitigating future emissions" crap then just about everything that single person can do is merely purely mitigating future emissions short of blowing up a coal plant. If I never had a car and consciously decide to not get a car because of my carbon footprint its the exact same thing, but less effective, I assume you don't have the same contempt for that do you? In any event everything is too little too late at this point, we could have a mass nuclear building program and it would probably take decades to break through the current climate and actually get the drat things built. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Kenzie posted:I would like a new thread as well, please. The OP for this one dates back to 2011. Thirding this, seems like the crazies have been coming out of the woodwork on my social media feeds lately, and an updated evidence depot would make it easier to shut down denialist arguments
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
I am not an expert in demographics or sociology, but I am pretty sure a few goons deciding not to reproduce is not going to kickoff the voluntary extinction of the human race.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:As I said before if your so fixated on this "purely mitigating future emissions" crap then just about everything that single person can do is merely purely mitigating future emissions short of blowing up a coal plant. If I never had a car and consciously decide to not get a car because of my carbon footprint its the exact same thing, but less effective, I assume you don't have the same contempt for that do you? Not having a baby still does nothing to fix your current emissions portfolio. The status quo, sans another baby is bad. Keeping the status quo by not having another baby is still bad. Avoiding high emissions transit such as air travel or vehicles does reduce change the status quo. Just like switching away from carbon electricity generation, reducing consumption of high climate impact foods, improving efficiency reducing leaks of high impact gases, etc all actually can reduce current rate of emissions. If you already are a net producer of carbon-free electricity, offset all your emissions, go to local, regional and national meetings and hearings, don't eat meat or use other high impact good, never fly, and still feel that you can't raise a child that would be a climate net positive, then yes maybe don't have kids. Ziggy Starfucker posted:Thirding this, seems like the crazies have been coming out of the woodwork on my social media feeds lately, and an updated evidence depot would make it easier to shut down denialist arguments Seems like everyone wants to remove those from the OP and replace it with mitigation/adaption/geo-engineering only, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Reading up on climate change is pretty depressing. The human species is so narcissistic and the human psyche so will-fully ignorant that I think we will wipe ourselves out within 200 years. You could say 'gently caress Republicans and Big Oil' but Republicans are still human beings. The flaw is with the human species itself being susceptible to stupidity and ignorance, especially on a wide social psychological level, and we have these psychological behaviors because they were beneficial at some point in our evolution. I wonder how many alien species in the universe make it to some industrial/technological age but kill themselves out by either mass ignorance and apathy, or accidentally destroying their planet by mishandling the knowledge science provides. Honestly the only way humanity is going to survive the situation we are in is space exploration and colonization. And there is a big reason why settling space would work - it isn't 'redundancy' in case we destroy a livable environment, it is because the ONLY way we can explore space is to develop and use technology that allows us to be energy self-sufficient - the technology itself would make the need for redundancy go away in the first place. The same technology that would allow an independent colony to live on Mars is exactly what we need here on Earth to save it. Think of Earth as not our home or a planet, but a big loving spaceship that we travel on every day to survive. If we can develop self-sufficient 'mini-Earth' colonies on other planets, then used the same technology here on Earth itself, we can save it and keep it hospitable for human life. I am not even saying I believe it is possible, especially in the next 200 years. Actually I don't think it is possible and believe humans are hosed because it would require a massive undertaking, spending and coordinated effort that would never ever happen with a intellectually-void, corrupt capitalist country running the entire world. Imagine a spaceship with a Carbon Budget of 0, the need to recycle and clean its own fresh water, dispose of waste in a sustainable and non-destructive way that has 0 cost to the spaceship's environment, create enough food to feed its population, and have all energy means supplied from a star (reliable energy for billions of years). That actually happens to be our exact situation here on earth because the earth is just a big spaceship.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
Meta Ridley posted:Reading up on climate change is pretty depressing. The human species is so narcissistic and the human psyche so will-fully ignorant that I think we will wipe ourselves out within 200 years. You could say 'gently caress Republicans and Big Oil' but Republicans are still human beings. The flaw is with the human species itself being susceptible to stupidity and ignorance, especially on a wide social psychological level, and we have these psychological behaviors because they were beneficial at some point in our evolution. No no, you see, we can easily stop global warming, all we have to do is convince everyone to not have a kid!
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Seems like everyone wants to remove those from the OP and replace it with mitigation/adaption/geo-engineering only, right? Well, the two things that seem to pop up over and over are "god we're so hosed, what can I do?" and "so my conservative uncle just posted this poo poo on my Facebook and I know it's false but don't have the info to say how....", so I'll try to cover both. Edit: I already have a pretty good idea of the done-to-death arguments people keep repeating, so I'll try and summarize those in a way that's not too eye-gougingly stupid. Not that that will stop people from continuing to rehash them. Uranium Phoenix fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Seems like everyone wants to remove those from the OP and replace it with mitigation/adaption/geo-engineering only, right? Please don't forget to add a "So what can we do to fix it? / Nothing. We're poo poo out of luck at this point and it's time to start looking at adapting to the new world we've made for ourselves while reducing our emissions to zero, as best and as fast as we can." FAQ line to make it really clear to new readers why there's no talking about "fixing" it any more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
We'd probably be able to tick carbon emissions down a bit just by not dropping sick burns on strawmen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 13:34
|
|
|
Meta Ridley posted:Reading up on climate change is pretty depressing. The human species is so narcissistic and the human psyche so will-fully ignorant that I think we will wipe ourselves out within 200 years. You could say 'gently caress Republicans and Big Oil' but Republicans are still human beings. The flaw is with the human species itself being susceptible to stupidity and ignorance, especially on a wide social psychological level, and we have these psychological behaviors because they were beneficial at some point in our evolution. We ruined earth, the only planet within light years with a chemical makeup well suited to support human life and your plan is to move to another planet. Sorry, we're nowhere near enough advanced to do that before we kill ourselves here. That's wishful thinking along the lines of thinking maybe I won't be the one affected. We're stuck here. Earth is fixable. We'll lose a good chunk of population, but we aren't on a Venus-path just yet, just a drastically altered Earth path.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:No no, you see, we can easily stop global warming, all we have to do is convince everyone to not have a kid! No the solution is to pray harder and force everybody to be Christian. If we're more righteous God will take care of us. You can start by having as many children as possible because God commands it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
I think it's super cute that this thread is discussing population controls and yet no one in it is willing to commit to not having children themselves. Edit: ooh, even better is the self-defensive flailing of the parents! Look, me deciding to not buy an emissions factory doesn't help climate change because those emissions are in the future, and the future isn't coming and/or inevitable, nosiree. It is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard that having fewer first world kids won't reduce emissions, period. I'm not saying you shouldn't have them, go right ahead, just admit that they will cause their own emissions, Christ. Radbot fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
I've never done it either
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Marching downwards, without end la la la I interviewed with 2 carbon capture companies like 6 years ago. Its very difficult because there isn't enough market for the captured carbon, and putting compressed gas into the ground is very difficult to do successfully. The storage needs to last for a long, long time. Both of the companies have since been acquired by venture firms, employees let go and patents added to portfolios.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
If we assume Jevon's Paradox is true, won't reducing the population just increase the per-capita usage of everyone remaining?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:20 |
|
|
computer parts posted:If we assume Jevon's Paradox is true, won't reducing the population just increase the per-capita usage of everyone remaining? Only if you wrongly assume Jevon's Paradox is some sort of immutable law that precludes efficiency gains anywhre and at any time
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 15:16
|
|