I agree it's hard to feel sympathetic for her.
That said, there's not much point changing her opinion now. May as well continue declaring loyalty as that's the only currency she has really.
I agree it's hard to feel sympathetic for her.
That said, there's not much point changing her opinion now. May as well continue declaring loyalty as that's the only currency she has really.
Also water, they consume heaps of fresh water which is used for important meat bag things like, oh I don't know, eating and drinking perhaps.
No one is really challenging them on this, but water scarcity is going to be a big deal as climate change worsens.
Cook the planet and take all the water.
Supercomputers once required large power plants to operate, and now we carry around computing devices in out pockets that are more powerful than those supercomputers.
This is false. Supercomputers never required large [dedicated] power plants to operate.
Yes they used a lot of power, yes that has reduced significantly, but it's not at the same magnitude as AI
None of that is terrifying at all /s.
This is precisely the outcome that every republican wants.
Being mean to poor people, especially if they look different.
Yes but we also consume CO2 if we're part of a society which is net 0.
As i said up top, the infographic is designed to demonstrate the environmental problems caused by over population.
However, the methodology used to represent that impact is problematic.
I'm not saying overpopulation is not bad. I'm not saying you should have n children. I'm saying the numbers here dont withstand a moments critical thought.
How much carbon will a child born today emit in their lifetime?
Thats unknowable.
Your reference to emissions increasing since the industrial revolution is not a forecast.
The methodology here is kinda bs IMO.
They're adding up the emissions of the descendants and dividing that by a parents life expectancy.
However, if a society achieves net 0, then surely the emissions of every person there in are 0, so it's disingenuous to count them at today's rates.
Its an attempt to illustrate the environmental cost of over-population, but it needs to be considered within the context of that methodology.
Yeah but, a few or even a bunch of other countries "doing deals" won't really change the calculus for us. It would really take most countries really grovelling to change the dynamic.
Let's not forget, the status quo pre-Trump was the best everyone could achieve for everyone involved.
Everyone hates capitalism and that's fine, there are many worthy criticisms but one benefit is it's ability to find the most profitable balance (for those with the capital). Arbitrary rules (tariffs) are always going to be a net loss.
What I mean is, there's not much incentive for anyone to make a deal because the situation will always be worse for them than it was pre-Trump.
At this point the Trump admin is just trying to find the best way to back down without looking weak. They don't really have a plan to do so, they're just hoping some other shit storm takes center stage.
In the case of Australia, our government decided that it's not worth trying to secure a deal for a number of reasons:
The rubric is going to be similar for other countries.
If nobody bends over for Trump he will end up fucking himself.
IKR. This was the obvious answer 24 hours ago but here we are discussing wear patterns and contrast.
It just nuts that anyone would want this.