It seems so obvious that the solution is the eradication of humans. Some clearly are drifting toward that conclusion. It's a staple of scifi thrillers, some environmental group loses it and unleashes a plague, or whatever. Of course there's always an evil inner cabal that hypocritically assumes it will be the surviving minority in Eden, with lots of resources and nubile girlzzz.
If you're Bill Gates, you pose it as a benign experiment in limiting the size of population, not killing everyone. That just leaves everyone to fight over whether we should be aiming for the pre-industrial population or the prehistoric one.
Removing the humans is actually counterproductive in terms of environmental quality in many cases. Yes, air pollution decreases (until a volcano burps). But some of the worst episodes of soil erosion have taken place when farmed land is abandoned, or when terraces and soil and water control structures are no longer maintained because there are not enough people. That was a huge problem in Late Antiquity (AD 475-800 ish), as the archaeologists discovered to their surprise.
6 comments:
Look at the other articles on the web page. Such as Chomsky on COVID-19: The latest massive failure of neoliberalism.Seem serious to me.
Look at the main link to the article. Source: nature.com Methane fluxes from coastal sediments are enhanced by macrofauna.
Seem serious to me. Not a spoof.
If it's true, harvesting this might well be cheaper than fracking for gas. And Florida can always use more oyster shells for its roads.
Eric Hines
Peak oil will kill us all!aa!!!!
It seems so obvious that the solution is the eradication of humans. Some clearly are drifting toward that conclusion. It's a staple of scifi thrillers, some environmental group loses it and unleashes a plague, or whatever. Of course there's always an evil inner cabal that hypocritically assumes it will be the surviving minority in Eden, with lots of resources and nubile girlzzz.
If you're Bill Gates, you pose it as a benign experiment in limiting the size of population, not killing everyone. That just leaves everyone to fight over whether we should be aiming for the pre-industrial population or the prehistoric one.
Removing the humans is actually counterproductive in terms of environmental quality in many cases. Yes, air pollution decreases (until a volcano burps). But some of the worst episodes of soil erosion have taken place when farmed land is abandoned, or when terraces and soil and water control structures are no longer maintained because there are not enough people. That was a huge problem in Late Antiquity (AD 475-800 ish), as the archaeologists discovered to their surprise.
LittleRed1
Whoever disbelieves this has never been knee deep in muck on an oyster flat. Whew!
Post a Comment