If your goal is to reduce “strain on everything around” (whatever that means), it looks like either a: you starve people, or b: we reduce our fossil fuel consumption. I’d choose b.
From you - nothing, I am merely responding to you. The problem is two-fold: one, we are still taking care of our survival at the expense of all other life forms: agriculture that destroys soil, manufacturing that is poisoning water, soil and air, etc. etc. All this can be done in a much more effective and sustainable way. Two, whichever way we do it, planet is finite, so ever increasing human population is a disaster in making. It is time we realized that and started managing our numbers in such a way we don’t starve other life just by existing
Exactly. Like I said, the fewer of us, the lesser our strain on everything around
If your goal is to reduce “strain on everything around” (whatever that means), it looks like either a: you starve people, or b: we reduce our fossil fuel consumption. I’d choose b.
B is not a solution. Nor A is needed. Come on, it’s not rocket surgery
Then I have no idea what problem you’re talking about and what you want from me.
Sounds like you want to make money off fossil fuels and you want me to tell you that’s fine, but I’m no rocket surgeon.
From you - nothing, I am merely responding to you. The problem is two-fold: one, we are still taking care of our survival at the expense of all other life forms: agriculture that destroys soil, manufacturing that is poisoning water, soil and air, etc. etc. All this can be done in a much more effective and sustainable way. Two, whichever way we do it, planet is finite, so ever increasing human population is a disaster in making. It is time we realized that and started managing our numbers in such a way we don’t starve other life just by existing
Alright so then reduce your fossil fuel consumption. That’s b. Bye now.
Alright, so reading problems. Bye, good luck to you