There are *so many* technologies for pulling CO2 from the air. At least some of these will scale and be profitable, and we've barely even started working on the problem, so the sky's the limit. Here's a new one:https://youtu.be/ejW4f6liOS8?t=4497 …
-
Show this thread
-
If you've previously taken a doom-and-gloom attitude toward climate change, keying off what you saw reflected in the media and online, it is time to take an objective look at the many solutions that are out there, and reassess.
16 replies 5 retweets 92 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Jonathan_Blow
I seriously doubt working on technology that directly solves the problem is going to lead to technology that directly solves the problem. A much better approach is to complain about people's lifestyles on Twitter, and yell slogans outside international meetings of functionaries.
10 replies 7 retweets 87 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @Jonathan_Blow
Don't you need both? I mean... not the "complain" part, but to both adjust lifestyles to use fewer resources, AND work on tech? It's really hard to justify "tech will solve this eventually" when humanity pumps more CO2 year over year due to increasing demand.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @laserbeam333 @Jonathan_Blow
I mean, the answer is obviously no. Unless the endgame for humans is to have strict population limits, then it doesn't _ever_ matter what you do to your lifestyle. Our population will just grow to consume the same amount of resources again.
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
So although everyone has their ridiculous nonsense ideas, the truth is, unless you decide that humanity is going to implement population control, our future is space travel and technology. Lifestyle modification as an idea is just a failure to understand exponentiation.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
The fertility rate of most developed countries is below 2 births per woman and has been for decades. If it weren't for immigration, population would shrink. "Population control" is improving health and education. Let Hans Rosling explain.https://youtu.be/BkSO9pOVpRM
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @deguerre @cmuratori and
Also worth looking at the data by country. Remember, birth rate of 2 is basically zero population growth. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I strongly disagree with all of this and furthermore think it is overwhelmingly obvious why, but I'm not sure how to explain it in Twitter. The easiest way to say it is that humans automatically expand to their capability horizon.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
So all of these things are just stating what I stated, but doing it very poorly, and inaccurately. The correct statement is "if you reduced the cost of human footprint, humans would make more humans". The limit these people refer to _is_ the self-limiting lifestyle humans do.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.