warmer waters = less oxygen
less oxygen = less life
less life = less food
less food = less human
less oxygen = less life
less life = less food
less food = less human
less greenhouse gas emissions = less greenhouse gas
less greenhouse gas = cooler waters
Seems the problem is eventually self correcting.
Woman inherits the earth.
(Best line delivery in the movie)
And yes, we would also have to kill part of China, especially the cities
This thread is silly. To reduce the world population you don't need to kill anyone at all. You simply look for ways to reduce birth rates.
(The second part for sure, judging by you gettin' downvoted to oblivion.)
The electricity that feeds my computer allowing me to type this comment comes from the local power plant, which is fossil-fuel based (coal and natural gas). Shall I be put to death? Or am I far enough removed, and instead perhaps the CEO of the utility company? Or considering that they answer to the shareholders, maybe anybody who owns shares? Considering that it's a publicly-traded company that serves roughly 4% of the landmass of the continental US, that's quite a lot of people.
In the end, nobody burns polluting coal and gas for fun. They do it because it's the economical choice; if we could all have abundant clean energy from fusion power at the wave of a wand, we would do it. The fact remains that "problems" cannot be "solved" as much as they need to be weighed against the tradeoffs; there is no free lunch, and the scarce time and resources that can be spent "solving" something can be equally spent somewhere else. I'm afraid that the desire of some people to classify the problem of the changing climate as a categorical imperative that must be "solved" at any cost does not change the underlying reality, which is that "at any cost" is an impossible thing in real life.
Look up rolling coal. But yes, most people don't.