You must log in or register to comment.
Damn
Greetings from Hanoi. We had a similar experience here.
they wont have to worry about sunburns, because there is no sun available.
This is why regulations are important.
Functional regulations are why you don’t vote for conservatives.
Source: I live in a valley that used to have way worse air quality until stricter SMOG and gasoline refinement laws took effect.
I was born in Christchurch, New Zealand, and as a child in the 70s and 80s we had smog warnings where you weren’t allowed outside.
It’s not a big city, but the topography meant that pollution would sometimes get trapped over the city by the surrounding hills. Obviously it’s not like that now, but I’m sure it’s why we all got asthma.
This is kind of misleading. Delhi commonly experiences fog in the winter months. Since the same weather conditions that form fog (atmospheric stability) also cause pollution to accumulate rather than blow away, the city gets AQI spikes and fog at the same time. The photo on the right is smog, but also representative of what you’d see if there were no air pollution.
The Earth can heal if we stop stabbing it.
I hate to be a Debbie Downer, but we’re going to rape the shit out of this planet until it’s a lifeless husk. It is in our nature. And it’s not like we have to rape the whole thing. Just the surface.
Even if we got really good at recycling, we’ll always produce waste and use resources that can’t be reproduced in a reasonable timeframe. 8 billion of us and counting. Raping.
Username checks all the way out
Its not our nature, this entire thing is huffing the momentum of a couple thousand rich assholes who own everything. What we are wired to do is not change jack shit until we get fucked up. If we could conquer that and throw these assholes out you’ll see a better world in a single generation.
been thinking about this a lot, feeling so accelerationist because of it.
Mood AF. I hate feeling this way, but I almost feel things need to get worse before they get better.
I won’t actively work towards that, and I’ll work to make my community and city a better place in the midst of that. But I think humanity will only change when things are really drastic.
If you could just snap your fingers and half the world’s population would disappear would you?
Id just have the wealthiest die 5 billion times
Holy fuck why does Lemmy have so many ecofascists
It’s not like they are welcome in many other places
If I could snap my fingers and all the world’s billionaires disappear I would, or oil refineries. Not people though. Humans aren’t the virus.
Getting rid of half the population or half the refineries would accomplish the same thing right?
If the half of the population includes the part that owns cars perhaps, but the carbon footprint of a person varries greatly. In general the more money someone has the higher the burden they are on the climate.
Oil is used in the production and transportation of food.
Also fertilizer.
And the plastic that keeps the medical system running.
My point is only that not every person on the world has equal access to those things.
My point is those oil refineries keep a lot of people alive.
The problem is mathematically it just doesn’t work. Humans are too good at reproducing. We’d be back in force before too long.
No, the only way is more death note style, taking out billionaires and some of their bootlicking buddies, and those who put profit over the planet’s health. It’s perfectly possible for the rest of us to patch things up—we almost did it with the ozone. (Until guess who decided they wanted to throw money around to force us to stop.)
I think we humans have grown to a population size where anyone’s profit hurting the planets health should be stopped. We need to take protecting the planet’s (in some ways fragile) ecosystem as serious as we take protecting children against abuse for example. Future generations will have to learn or we will find out together what fucking around gets us.
Idk, I feel like targeting living beings is different than targeting structures, even though I know a sudden lack of refined oil would lead to death. I’m just convinced they’ll never stop until their own heat deaths.
Just the collapse of the medical system alone due to the missing plastics would kill millions.
Aye, so its a rock and a hard place then. At least when it comes to solutions like these.
I’d go for the quick and painless snap over the long drawn out biotic crisis caused by the removal of a key resource but that’s only because I’m a humanitarian.
They don’t refine oil for people to consume it, they refine oil to generate shareholder value.
Do they just dump it in a big hole and profit?
Probably, I don’t know.
If I could snap my fingers and have people wake up from the capitalist propaganda they’ve been force-fed their whole lives, I would. Population is not the issue, it’s a deflection.
Population is definitely an issue there’s no many problem that wouldn’t be instantly solved by going down to a hundred million people.
If your only problem is that you want more resources available for yourself, I can see how you’d come to that conclusion, but you’re wrong. It wouldn’t solve the underlying problems, and in fact it would create a whole set of new ones. Modern civilization depends heavily on economies of scale, and your magic finger snap does nothing to change how resources are produced, distributed, or consumed.
You’re also assuming that every human consumes resources at roughly the same rate. They don’t. Not even close. A tiny fraction of humanity consumes vastly more resources than billions of other people. Your finger snap doesn’t address that inequality at all. The same people and systems that concentrate resources now would simply have an even larger pool of resources to hoover up afterward. Then what? Snap your fingers again?
And follow the logic to its conclusion. If reducing humanity to 100 million “solves” problems because fewer people are consuming resources and competing for them, then 1 million should be even better. Five thousand better still. Ultimately, zero humans means zero poverty, zero war, zero homelessness, zero human carbon emissions, and zero human suffering. Problem solved!
Except obviously it isn’t, because eliminating the people who experience a problem is not the same thing as solving the problem for those people.
We don’t have billions of people living in poverty because there simply isn’t enough stuff on Earth to go around. We have enormous disparities in who controls resources and who gets to consume them. Fantasizing about eliminating most of humanity while leaving that system completely intact makes you a stooge for the oligarchs.
But even with these slower rates of growth, our population is already far above the sustainable carrying capacity given by Bradshaw and team’s models.
The gap between their optimum number of 2.5 billion and our current population size of 8.3 billion may help explain the problems with overconsumption our species currently faces.
Earth’s Population Has Surpassed The Planet’s Capacity, Study Suggests
Did you actually read what you provided? It’s really not the defense of your point that you are making it out to be. Lead author, Corey Bradshaw (Who also co-authored Human Population Reduction is Not a Quick Fix for Environmental Problems), argues that our current consumption system is unsustainable. I couldn’t agree more!
The 2.5 billion figure cited within is not some immutable physical limit on the number of human bodies Earth can contain. The authors explicitly acknowledge that a “sustainable” population depends on things like standard of living, economics, social conditions, and resource consumption. Their ecological-footprint estimate of 2.35 billion specifically assumes today’s average material standard of living and current consumption distribution, including the enormous consumption of the wealthiest people.
You’re taking a model of how many people our planet can sustainably support under particular socioeconomic and consumption conditions and treating it as evidence that the people themselves are the fundamental problem. That’s not what the evidence shows, though. Not even the evidence you yourself brought to the table, sorry!
It’s a number of people that the planet can carry based on reality.
I was on Thanos’ side the entire time.
Without a second thought
*Starts dancing flamenco
I’ve cross-posted this to “Actually Infuriating” where it belongs.
I think that at this point they should look into building a New New Delhi
Good lord… I wonder if overall things were healthier for them during the pandemic than now.
It is very similar to how people in the UK were actually healthier during WWII as the food rationing program meant they weren’t eating a total shit diet.
They also got more exercise as more of the population was engaged in physical labor (women’s land army) and factory work to produce food and war goods.
Oh that is an interesting part I never knew.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution_in_Delhi
Air pollution in Delhi, the capital of India, was found to be one of the most lethal of any city in the world in an August 2022 study of 7,000 world cities by the US-based Health Effects Institute.[2] Air pollution in India is estimated to kill about 2 million people every year. India has the world’s highest death rate from chronic respiratory diseases and asthma according to the World Health Organization.[3] In Delhi, poor air quality has irreversibly damaged the lungs of 2.2 million children.
On 25 November 2019, the Supreme Court of India expressed their sentiments on the pollution in Delhi, saying “Delhi has become worse than narak (hell)”.[4] Supreme Court Justice Arun Mishra remarked that it is “better to get explosives, (and) kill everyone.”[5]
During the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in India, the air quality in Delhi significantly improved.[6][7]
India’s Ministry of Earth Sciences published a research paper in October 2018 attributing almost 41% of air pollution to vehicular emissions, 21.5% to dust and 18% to industrial emissions.[8]
If the largest single factor is vehicle emissions, I wonder how far people there typically go. Like, if it’s people who are only driving around the city, that might be a good candidate for EV use.
EDIT: Sounds like they’re already on it, just started some major push.
Delhi’s new EV Policy 2.0 introduces financial subsidies for electric vehicles starting July 1, 2026, and implements a phased ban on new petrol/CNG vehicle registrations (including petrol two-wheelers by April 1, 2028), though existing registered petrol vehicles can still be legally driven
-
Delhi will stop registering new petrol and CNG three-wheelers from January 1, 2027. Registration of new petrol two-wheelers will also end from April 1, 2028.
-
The ban applies only to new vehicle registrations. Existing petrol vehicles, or those bought before the 2028 deadline, can continue to be used legally until the end of their permitted lifespan.
Highway there is like literal hell, 50 ppl sharing one lane, you are quite literally bumper to bumper on the highway going highway speeds, youll see 3-5 ppl sharing one moped somehow, like poor families that need to travel for whatever reason.
Somehow no one crashes, no turn signals, just constant never ending honking which lowkey feels like sonar. (they can tell the distance without looking)
-
And a brand new sun gets buried alive roughly twelve hours after it sprouts. /s
Without additional data, this only tells me that visibility is lower and the lighting has changed.
