How far would you go to save the planet?

a reply to: network dude
NASA and scientists keep telling us we're overdue for another ELE, so be patient and...

Or if you're a proactive type of person...

a reply to: Klassified

In reality humans are dissipative systems and increase the entropy of their surrounding, so the ultimate sacrifice for the environment would be suicide?

en.wikipedia.org...

Here are some interesting solutions I found from PopulationMatters.org
The first three solutions stood out to me and make a lot of sense.

1) EMPOWERING WOMEN AND GIRLS
Where women and girls are empowered to choose what happens to their bodies and lives, fertility rates plummet. Empowerment means freedom to pursue education and a career, economic independence, easy access to sexual and reproductive healthcare, and ending horrific injustices like child marriage and gender-based violence. Overall, advancing the rights of women and girls is one of the most powerful solutions to our greatest environmental and social crises. Solutions 2 and 3 below are both tightly linked with female empowerment.

2) REMOVING BARRIERS TO CONTRACEPTION
Currently, more than 200 million women who want to avoid pregnancy are not using modern contraception. There are a variety of reasons for this, including lack of access, concerns about side-effects and social pressure (often from male partners) not to use it. These women mostly live in some of the world’s poorest countries, where population is set to rise by 3 billion by 2100. Overseas aid support for family planning is essential – both ensuring levels are high enough and that delivery of service is effective and goes hand-in-hand with advancing gender equality and engaging men.

Across the world, some people choose not to use contraception because they are influenced by assumptions, practices and pressures within their nations or communities. In some places, very large family sizes are considered desirable; in others, the use of contraception is discouraged or forbidden. Work with women and men to change attitudes towards contraception and family size has formed a key part of successful family planning programmes. Religious barriers may also be overturned or sidelined. In Iran, a very successful family planning campaign was initiated when the country’s religious leader declared the use of contraception was consistent with Islamic belief. In Europe, some predominantly Catholic countries such as Portugal and Italy have some of the lowest fertility rates.

3) QUALITY EDUCATION FOR ALL
Ensuring every child receives a quality education is one of the most effective levers for sustainable development. Many kids in developing countries are out of school, with girls affected more than boys due to gender inequality. Education opens doors and provides disadvantaged kids and young people with a "way out". There is a direct correlation between the number of years a woman spends in education and how many children she ends up having. According to one study, African women with no education have, on average, 5.4 children; women who have completed secondary school have 2.7 and those who have a college education have 2.2. When family sizes are smaller, that also empowers women to gain education, take work and improve their economic opportunities.

A UN survey showed that the more educated respondents were, the more likely they were to believe that there is a climate emergency. This means that higher levels of education lead to the election of politicians with stronger environmental policy agendas.

a reply to: network dude

I think we should consider saving Mars, Venus, to start with. And then up to Neptunus.

a reply to: network dude

why would we have to kill anyone to save the planet? Yes, I do believe there are to many of us on this planet, but If I had all the power in the world I would not kill anyone.
I would make euthanesia and abortion laws simpler, I would stimulate people to have fewer children. imo, abortion = not murder... and I think a familly can be perfectly happy with two children max, or possibly adopt as much as they want if they really want more.

I would spend a lot of money on smaller, eco friendly houses. Put a world wide building stop in place and only allow smaller housing with more green. Put a stop to de-forrestation, etc...

There is a lot we can do, both the people as those that are in power.
The big problem right now is that there are to many deniers and to many that are not willing to give up some of their comfort... or even step outside of their comfort zone to save the planet. If not everyone is willing to do their part we will never get there.

that said, I don't believe we will ever get there.... sorry for the errors, my spellcheck is not working!

originally posted by: Moon68
a reply to: network dude

the planet doesn't need to be saved. Mother Earth was here long before us and will be here long after us. If she wanted us gone, she'd just douche us off into space.

I'm not sure why humans believe they are so special.

We will all be gone some day and the planet won't even notice

a reply to: network dude

That is why we have the Illuminati, Freemasons & Skull & Bones, so civilians, politicians mafias & military leaders don't have to make those tough decisions because they are incapable of making the right ones on a global scale. America is built on neccessary evil, strength for peace. Noone cares about how earth is going to be in 100 years, they say they do but their actions speak a thousand times different. If your on here, or any internet, you support the destruction of earth so there is no argument that you are any different. By using the internet your words might say earth but your actions are supporting & endorsing space travel which means you are neglecting earth care. Space is the only concern. Good thing we have groups of people that see the realistic properties of human nature.

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: tanstaafl
regardless of man's contribution to how the planets environment changes over time, would you agree that one of our goals should be to better control our environment for its and our benefit? We can achieve that through technology.

One thing that infuriates me is how the radical climate change crowd conflates 'man-mad climate change' with 'pollution'.

I am am 100% in favor of doing everything possible within reason to eliminate any and all pollution, and doing so at its source.

Yes, this means holding the big multi-national/global corporations to full financial accountability for any and all pollution they generate, whether directly or incidentally. This includes holding all corporate officers personally liable as well as the company itself, and yes, this includes 'accidental' events, like oil spills, etc. The only thing that the officers should not be personally liable for are acts of god type events, but the company should still be 100% liable.

Any company that is caught intentionally polluting (dumping crap-tons of garbage/toxic waste into our oceans, etc), and it can be proven in court, should simply be liquidated - including all company and corporate officers personal property/holdings - and the proceeds used to make whole anyone damaged by their criminal acts - followed by criminal prosecutions with very substantive penalties.

This should also entail massive investments in replacing any/all current fast breeder nuclear reactors with safe and vastly more efficient and profitable LFTRs, fully funded by the Government, with all proceeds going directly back into the General Fund. The profit potential for medical isotopes alone are even larger than the profits from selling the energy produced.

Of course, the devil is in the details...

hit the wrong button - sorry

originally posted by: network dude
Would you kill to save it? How many would you kill? What if you determined that we needed to kill 70% of the global population to save the Earth? Would anyone be able to do it? How would you get that many people to do something that could kill them willingly?

these are dark times ahead. Best pay attention and look out for each other. make good decisions. The bad man is already planning his next move.

As to the original post.
Would I kill to save it? No. There isn't any point because the problem is the solution - the problem will reduce the population without interference.
How many would you kill? I think the question is "How many would they kill?"
Georgia Guidestones say about 7 billion as does the WEF with the Great reset. I don't think anyone understands how big that number is and how few 500 million is.
Would anyone be able to kill 70% of the world population? The population is 8 billion. 70% is 5.6 billion.
I do not believe anyone realizes how big that number is. Consider the Western Hemisphere, which is North and South America. Look it up, there are only a billion people here.
African continent? 1.2 billion.
Do you see that? If you delete all in people on 3 continents, you are not even half way there.
If you want to delete 5.6 billion people, you have to go where the people are - China, East Asia, India.
And they have been working at population reduction for 50 years with NO success.

No one is going to do it willingly.
No normal person actively thinks about what would be required because it is mass genocide.
Apparently, that's why we elect and promote psychopaths.

It quite popular for Aztecs to perform human blood sacrifices to avoid global cooling, and also reduced their carbon foot print, until Jesus came.

Renew, Renew, RENEW.

a reply to: network dude

Let's correct that, not to SAVE THE PLANET but to prevent an environmental impact that is supposedly ALL of it humanity's fault.

Well how do we explain that fact that before the last glacial maximum temperatures were higher than today?.


But as a thought experiment, NO!.

Now if you were on a sinking ship would you give up your place for a woman and child, I should hope so but no one knows until we are in that situation.

But back to humanity's so called environmental impact, yes we ARE having one.

But it is within our technological level to control it or to balance it out, we green our city's, build vertical farm's were a skyscraper in the past was used as office space in the future it could be used as acres and acres of farm land occupying it's many floors, the same with nature reserves think of them as giant terrariums but not completely closed.

Get rid of LED street lights and go back to good old fashioned incandescent or fluorescent as it has now been PROVEN that LED street light's are killing off insects and interfering with there biorhythms and anyway the argument they are more green is a lie as it costs far more in energy and resources that need to be mined to make them than it did for the older variety of lighting even the fluorescent variety.

Use the sea more, Farm fish, set up a united nations not for profit Ocean cleaning operation to deploy old ship's repurposed to filter out plastics from the water and recycle those plastics, tax the company's that produce the plastics to pay for the operation and sanction governments that do not agree to go along with the process.

Pump desalinated water into the desert regions that are growing and set up artificial lakes of fresh water and irrigation systems to turn them green and not only for agriculture but for nature, yes some deserts need to be protected as well but we need carbon sump's to balance out our use so that people don't have to live in fear of heating there home or cooking there food as they are being scare mongered into by illiterate greenies brainwashed and used as unwitting foot soldiers of the same old Eugenics' crowd that have been wanting to kill off the poor since the French revolution made them # there silk undies - though they did not call it Eugenics' back them.

You know historically the Romans thought about culling all there slaves after Spartacus led a rebellion against him but instead realizing that they were too few to manage the vast territory they governed and that slaves were essential to there mechanism of rule they gave slaves a few more rights, only some gave those rights of course but they were passed into law by senate if not the same rights as a free man.

Those in control now see us as slaves and themselves as the patrician class so think on it a bit.

The greatest tool to control society before the advent of chemical (lithium among other substances) and EM tranquilization (dumbing down) and mood control was propaganda it is still the main tool they use.

Save the planet? LOL
The Earth will do just fine.
We are but a speed bump in it’s history.
Here is an argument that raises hackles when I bring it up.
“Every creature alive is of this Earth, part of it’s natural cycle. Being from this planet means every single thing they do is also part of the natural cycle of life.
Therefore man being part of nature, everything man does is all part of the natural cycle as well.”
When mankind winks out Earth will again become an Eden.

We need to do better, we should do better, but we won’t.

I’m more worried about what the children have coming than what Mother Earth has in her future.
Earth will be just fine! 😎

We humans are not capable of saving the planet so that is not a valid question. We can make it inhospitable to live on and our ability to do that has dramatically increased over the last couple of centuries.
The pertinent question is how do we slow down the destructive process we are locked into. Actually attempting to halt it is an exercise in futility, the best we can do is find ways to prolong our existence. The fact is that eventually our lives will become so insufferable death will be welcomed. So none of you have to go about killing people to make more space although I've no doubt there will arise any number of sick individuals who will think that is some kind of solution.

a reply to: network dude

Read Rainbow Six by Tom Clancy. A lot of what happens in that book is eerily similar to what is happening today.

a reply to: caf1550

thanks. I think the wife has that one.

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: network dude

I wouldn't go very far. We are all destined to die anyway, what's the difference if we all go together?

As I contemplate this, I find a certain peace in it.

a reply to: network dude

How far? I dunno, but KFC and Maccy Ds have recently changed their straws to be paper. I'm willing to sacrifice Dolphins for plastic straws coming back.

a reply to: network dude

That's crazy thinking, no offence.

That's like saying how many people would you kill to save a room or a house. A planet is just a location, and as such, it is important, but _NEVER_ as important as life, especially human life. Humans can always relocate, but once you murder someone, you can't be rescued to the side of angels anymore.

Of course after you have redeemed yourself by paying that particular karmic debt (which might be long and arduous process), an attempt can be made again. Nothing like that is forever, after all.

I would advice against killing anyone in any circumstances. Just don't do it.

How far would you go to save the planet?

Why do people insist on using the phrase 'save the planet'? We are not saving the planet, because it doesn't need saving, we are trying to stave off the inconvenience of having to change, and perhaps, reduce the quality of our lifestyles, in order to try and keep the environment of our locality capable of sustaining us.

Best way to actually save the planet (using your phrase) is for the entire human race to die off in a quick episode. In an event that happens so large and so rapidly that it knocks us all into extinction within a very short time. Let's face it, we really have become a pernicious life form, so much so that some intend to decimate our species so that a number of self-chosen can survive.

I say...no one gets to survive.