Maybe we should just start nuking the most densely packed cities/countries. Sorry NYC, Tokyo, and basically all of India.

But would this not solve the problem?

  • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
    15·
    4 months ago

    I know the name of the community is “no stupid questions”, but you managed to power through somehow anyway

    An excellent trolling if ever I’ve seen one

    🧌

  • cygnosis@lemmy.worldEnglish
    10·
    4 months ago

    (attempting to answer the question instead of shaming the questioner)

    It might have helped solve the problem if we did it 50 or 60 years ago, along with global EMP strikes to disable all the vehicles and industrial equipment, and a global commitment to return to an agrarian low-energy lifestyle. And if you prioritized the most highly industrialized cities that produce the greatest carbon per capita. But the sad truth is that, right now, it’s already too late. We have already released so much carbon into the atmosphere that we are more or less guaranteed to see 4 degrees C above pre-industrial. And if you aren’t already retired you will probably see it in your lifetime. Along the way that triggers a series of cascading feedback loops which, all-told, will likely take the planet to about 10C above pre-industrial. We continue to release something like 40 billion metric tons per year. And the best CCS facility we have, in Iceland, can sequester about 4,000 tons per year. We are racing toward the cliff with the throttle at full speed and no corrupt government scientist is going to take away my truck or make me eat bugs.

    And questions about who should die, who should be killed, and such don’t even really matter now. They sound immoral, but if the projections are right it looks like all of us who aren’t already old are going to die from climate change anyways. So pontificating on things that aren’t ever going to happen is just academic onanism.

  • Delphia@lemmy.world
    9·
    4 months ago

    I actually think this could work with one important adjustment.

    We should probably start with the people who think that killing off large portions of the population is a great idea and stop once we run out of those people.

  • KISSmyOS@feddit.org
    91·
    4 months ago

    No, the only reason we want to stop global warming in the first place is to prevent the death of 2/3 of all humans.
    No one gives a fuck about the polar bears, really.

  • zbyte64@awful.systems
    6·
    4 months ago

    You could accomplish the same CO2 reduction with fewer deaths if you start with the richest and work your way down.

  • fern@lemmy.autism.placeEnglish
    51·
    4 months ago

    OP convenient that your living location isn’t on the list. Maybe start looking inward? If you remove 2/3 of your mass you’d be doing your part, right?

  • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
    4·
    4 months ago

    I mean, nuking? That ain’t exactly going to fix anything.

    Like, the whole idea is bad, but dropping nukes is it’s own environmental disaster as bad or worse than global warming.

    Even using conventional munitions is going to cause fires and literal megatons of debris to be released into the atmosphere and water. This ain’t going to fix anything.

    It also assumes that population control is the fix in the first place, and it isn’t. The population levels would only shift the speed of change, not the fact of it. To stop or reverse the changes, you have to change the underlying cause of the change, which is pretty much down to industrial processes across multiple areas, including agriculture.

    Yeah, you kill off enough people, industrial efforts might cease, but it’s more likely that the remaining people are going to have to rely on the most effective methods to stay alive and functional, rather than the methods that are environmentally best.

  • spittingimage@lemmy.world
    3·
    4 months ago

    Well I mean… initially you’d have a whole bunch of dead humans emitting carbon dioxide and methane as they decompose.