And, eliminate Euclidean zoning in the U.S., so that people can live near where they work, or work near where they live. (Not all of us can do it, or like working from home.)
Comment on Trying to reverse climate change won’t save us, scientists warn
0x0@programming.dev 11 months agoif we drastically reduce the human population. Which would not only avoid the issues caused by climate change but also would prevent further increases in pollution and CO2 emissions.
Ignoring the genocide-apologist trend, the pandemic did wonders to reduce global warming…, perhaps start taxing more the companies that force back-to-office when they could clearly keep most of their work force at home?
SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 11 months ago
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Yup, mixed zoning would do wonders. Why we don’t do that is beyond me…
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
What genocide? Just sensible reproduction. There’s two options. 10 billion people living miserably like during the pandemic. Or maybe 1 billion people being able to live good lives.
ivanafterall@lemmy.world 11 months ago
What about 2 billion people living pretty good lives or 9 billion people living less-miserably? That’s at least two more options right there.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
There are infinite options we start doing fractions! (Please don’t)
Honytawk@lemmy.zip 11 months ago
We can completely solve it with 10 billion 1/2 people
petersr@lemmy.world 11 months ago
So who should go? You?
carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I’m pretty sure he said have less children, not start death camps.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
I literally said just having less children.
And I’m totally ok to only having between one or zero children myself.
0x0@programming.dev 11 months ago
China tried it, didn’t go too well… good luck trying it on a global scale…