this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

11068 readers
2703 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1
i <3 statistics (mander.xyz)
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Disclaimer: This is a joke. Ecofascism is obviously bad, kids. Don't be that guy.

https://theconversation.com/8-billion-people-why-trying-to-control-the-population-is-often-futile-and-harmful-194369

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I feel like this argument is way too imprecise, to the point of being basically untrue. That's probably based on the average emissions or something like that, but people are not the same and "emission responsibility" is wildly different.

Imagine killing 34k exploited African people, the world's climate won't even notice that. On the other hand, killing 34k middle class Americans or Europeans would probably be a little more effective, but still won't fix anything. Now, killing 34k high-profile megacorp executives would definitely be much more effective, but would also collapse some economies, leading to various climate unfriendly events (like riots, war and shit).

But the simplest empirical evidence is: COVID killed 6 million people and the climate is still shit.

Source: I made it the fuck up, I'm talking out of my ass

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The 34k wealthiest ppl in the world emit more than 3,200,000,000 average people.

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaire-emits-million-times-more-greenhouse-gases-average-person

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Bullshit.

The investments of just 125 billionaires emit 393 million tonnes of CO2e each year – the equivalent of France – at an individual annual average that is a million times higher than someone in the bottom 90 percent of humanity.

That is to say, if you multiply the emissions of the gasoline sold by ExxonMobil by whatever percentage of ExxonMobile that's in Bill Gate's portfolio, you get an absolutely ridiculous emissions number.

But that seems to assume that if it weren't for those dastardly billionaires investing in oil companies, we'd all be living in 10-minute cities with incredible subways connected by high speed rail, powered entirely by renewables, and heated by geothermal heat pumps. And I honestly don't beleive that.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Don't do this, but remember: the richer a person is, the bigger the ecological footprint. You are higher on that list than you might realize. Especially ecofascists tend to forget that fact.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah you know what would actually be better? Fixing legislation so that the 100 companies that create the majority of pollution stop doing that

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

The statistic that "Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions" is better understood as "Just 100 companies responsible for selling 71% of global fossil fuels". It's fundamentally saying that there's a few large coal, oil and gas companies worldwide selling us most of the supply.

If you want those companies to stop polluting, that amounts to those companies not selling fossil fuels.

Which is honestly the goal, but the only way to do that is to replace the demand for fossil fuels. Cutting the US off from fossil fuels would kill a ton of people if you didn't first make an energy grid 100% powered by renewables, got people to buy electric cars, cold climate heat pumps, etc.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah - everyone is shitting on the top 1% here in Germany until they realize that half the population here makes it into that percentile and suddenly it's the 0,1% that's the problem.

It's all about putting the blame on someone else so you don't have to question if you might be a little bit responsible, too, with your lifestyle...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's not how math works. Half the population is 50% not 1%

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I was talking about the global 1% since that's usually what those kind of stats are aimed at

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Are you implying that the climate crisis is a global issue? I thought it's all about recycling

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Recycling and liking pictures of polar bears.