So, which 4 billion of the planet must die in order to save the planet?
Everybody wants to talk about the problems of human overpopulation in terms of population and the dilemma of solving it until they themselves come up on the chopping block for elimination.
Specific scientists: Philip Cafaro, Jane O’Sullivan, William Rees, Mark Keegan, Anastasia Pseiridis, Estelle Monique Sidze, Lawrence Whitmore, Enrique J. Derlindati, Mohammad Mainul Islam, Khaoula Houssini, and S. Irudaya Rajan.
It is a prestigious journal it was published in. But when a newspaper says ‘scientists’ it can sound like a consensus of scientists, most scientists, etc.
They want it to happen by 2200. So, in around 170 years. That would entail enormous changes obviously. I doubt it will happen via legislation plus arguments. You’d be fighting so much self-interest all over the place.
But since humans play fast and loose with everything, it might come about accidently or on purpose through all sorts of nefarious means. Though probably not because of the concerns of the writers of the article.
First: Neither the planet nor life on earth needs saving. The planet will still be here even if all life dies on it, but life will not do such thing anyway because it adapts.
Even if we had a nuclear holocaust and eradicated all of humanity in radiation and mushroom clouds, the scorpions and cockroaches would inherit the planet and life would go on.
Second:
Global warming happened several times throughout the planet’s history as well as ice ages. What is happening right now is neither unprecedented nor unique.
Third: You are being fed bullshit by a mentally impaired liberal death cult that views humanity and itself as a disease, and would see everyone die and the rest be enslaved because thats their idea of virtue and being a good little cultist animal.
Or in short:
Your premise does not exist.
Billions only need to die because a death cult decided thats something positive.
