Last Non-winter

[Fake Messiah]

You don't mine smog for recycled fuel but carbon from the air, and carbon in the air is in same quantities all over the world.

[The Architect Of Fate]

You don't mine smog for recycled fuel but carbon from the air, and carbon in the air is in same quantities all over the world.

[onlinebiker]

When you burn the fuel you created the pollutants in the air are the same WITH THE ADDITION of the pollution from the fuel you used to build fuel.

No you don't get it that's not the case

---

I really don't get this, recycling works.  Sometimes the programs are expensive..but they do work.

Pop control won't reduce demand for something - less than 1% of us account for the majority of demand for anything.  For "things" in the aggregate, resource distribution and consumption is unfair, with a larger but still vanishingly small portion of the world population consuming the lions share of everything produced.

No kidding 

You think this would be a no brainer

Of course someone with no brain would think so.


What accounts for the majority of our atmospheric pollution?

Agriculture. And remember to add all the peripheries involved. The fuels burnt in growing, harvesting, distributing, preparing, storing, using and then disposing of food.

1% of the people eat more than half the food?

Huh... Who knew?

.....

Reducing population would directly reduce our food demand and have a huge impact on environmental quality.


You have to be a religious fanatic to think otherwise... Gotta breed lotsa faithful droolers huh?

---

You don't mine smog for recycled fuel but carbon from the air, and carbon in the air is in same quantities all over the world.

You better go tell NASA that they're wrong - and they should just quit mapping the levels.....

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images...on-dioxide

[The Architect Of Fate]

Of course someone with no brain would think so.

Nah it just so obvious only someone as clueless as you would think otherwise .But that's par for the course with you.

What accounts for the majority of our atmospheric pollution?



Agriculture. And remember to add all the peripheries involved. The fuels burnt in growing, harvesting, distributing, preparing, storing, using and then disposing of food.

1% of the people eat more than half the food?

Huh... Who knew?

This doesn't back your point it actually goes against it 

.

Reducing population would directly reduce our food demand and have a huge impact on environmental quality.

No it wouldn't you fool .How you can't see that is anyone's guess 

You have to be a religious fanatic to think otherwise... Gotta breed lotsa faithful droolers huh?

No you have to be a rational person  to think otherwise because your logic is retarded and is as fallacious  as something a theist would think up

---

You better go tell NASA that they're wrong - and they should just quit mapping the levels.....

Sigh his doesn't refute his point

[The Grand Nudger]

Of course someone with no brain would think so.


What accounts for the majority of our atmospheric pollution?

Agriculture. And remember to add all the peripheries involved. The fuels burnt in growing, harvesting, distributing, preparing, storing, using and then disposing of food.

1% of the people eat more than half the food?

Huh... Who knew?

.....

Reducing population would directly reduce our food demand and have a huge impact on environmental quality.


You have to be a religious fanatic to think otherwise... Gotta breed lotsa faithful droolers huh?

---

I think that you should take a look.  The numbers for food distribution are just as grim as any other product.

[onlinebiker]

Of course someone with no brain would think so.


What accounts for the majority of our atmospheric pollution?

Agriculture. And remember to add all the peripheries involved. The fuels burnt in growing, harvesting, distributing, preparing, storing, using and then disposing of food.

1% of the people eat more than half the food?

Huh... Who knew?

.....

Reducing population would directly reduce our food demand and have a huge impact on environmental quality.


You have to be a religious fanatic to think otherwise... Gotta breed lotsa faithful droolers huh?

---

I think that you should take a look.  The numbers for food distribution are just as grim as any other product.

And you stand by your assertation that 1% eat more than half the food? No? Then explain how the math works on your planet. It's obviously differing from our indigeonous form.

[The Grand Nudger]

It isn't exactly a new phenomena that a vanishingly small percentage of the worlds population consumes that vest majority of it's resources and produce very nearly all of the carbon we've placed in the atmosphere.

Ultimately, that's why pop control won't work to reduce carbon emissions. We could execute the entirety of the african continent and barely see a blip. Because they only account for 2-3 percent of world emissions and quite a bit of that is in industry to support us. I suppose that if we started by sterilizing the upper crust of society that might help, until the next cohort down starts snatching the newly freed up consumer goods.

Malthusian doom and gloom has always been a solution in search of a problem..and maybe one day there will be one - but the carbon problem is not that problem, and today is not that day.

: shrugs :

[The Architect Of Fate]

Of course someone with no brain would think so.


What accounts for the majority of our atmospheric pollution?

Agriculture. And remember to add all the peripheries involved. The fuels burnt in growing, harvesting, distributing, preparing, storing, using and then disposing of food.

1% of the people eat more than half the food?

Huh... Who knew?

.....

Reducing population would directly reduce our food demand and have a huge impact on environmental quality.


You have to be a religious fanatic to think otherwise... Gotta breed lotsa faithful droolers huh?

---

I think that you should take a look.  The numbers for food distribution are just as grim as any other product.

True food is no different then anything else . His fallacy remains invalid  regardless of product . Population reduction does not by necessity coralate to a reduction in consumption  .As i provided countless links directly demonstrating this flawed assumption.

[onlinebiker]

I think that you should take a look.  The numbers for food distribution are just as grim as any other product.

True food is no different then anything else . His fallacy remains invalid  regardless of product . Population reduction does not by necessity coralate to a reduction in consumption  .As i provided countless links directly demonstrating this flawed assumption.

Ten people eat the same amount as one.



Interesting math you have there...

[The Architect Of Fate]

It isn't exactly a new phenomena that a vanishingly small percentage of the worlds population consumes that vest majority of it's resources and produce very nearly all of the carbon we've placed in the atmosphere.  

Ultimately, that's why pop control won't work to reduce carbon emissions.  We could execute the entirety of the african continent and barely see a blip.  Because they only account for 2-3 percent of world emissions and quite a bit of that is in industry to support us.   I suppose that if we started by sterilizing the upper crust of society that might help, until the next cohort down starts snatching the newly freed up consumer goods.

Malthusian doom and gloom has always been a solution in search of a problem..and maybe one day there will be one - but the carbon problem is not that problem, and today is not that day.  

: shrugs :

Ah yes Malthus the walking doomcloud .Good thing he was wrong in every way possible

---

Ten people eat the same amount as one.



Interesting math you have there...

It's not my math. it's simply a fact the two don't correlate no matter how much you insist they do , And i more then provided evidence of that fact . Your plan won't work end of story .