A nice, simple CO2 solution

[LiberalEsto]

Some people are so concerned about fossil fuel emissions that they would sacrifice one hazard for another, in the form of nuclear energy.

I don't like fossil fuel OR nuclear energy. But I also don't like either/or options. There are so many other possibilities.

Let's think outside the box for a moment. Don't PEOPLE emit a heck of a lot of CO2? Every time we breathe in oxygen, we breathe out carbon dioxide. When we break wind, we probably release methane. On top of that, we create all kinds of nasty emissions in all our activities, from brushing our teeth to sending spaceships up into space.

Well for heaven's sake, let's just get rid of people!

Every last stinking CO2-breathing, methane-emitting 7 billion of us.

:hide:

[Lasher]

1. And leave the cows wandering around the planet farting?

Without people to eat them the cows would have a population explosion and fart away the atmosphere!

[LiberalEsto]

4. Cow Planet

A planet inhabited mainly by giant methane-breathing, methane-farting cows. Oh the horror!

[wtmusic]

8. That cow with the shotgun over there...

could that be Cheney in a cow-suit? (there's more than one way to start a New World Order)

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. From a logical standpoint, that's the only truly valid and perfect solution.

With no people, there's no machinery, power plants, cars, or even human CO2 creation.

Unfortunately, it still leaves us with the problem of people not being able to enjoy a pollution-free world.

:silly:

I wouldn't mind a 5-6 billion person purge; take us back to a more sustainable population.

[Howzit]

12. Hi uncle Ted. I didn't know they had internet access in solitary... n/t

[Howzit]

13. Does any of this ring true?

http://reactor-core.org/unabomber-manifesto.html

[Dead_Parrot]

14. Yikes. That's one fucked up website... nt

[Rabrrrrrr]

15. You ever just stop and... think?

[GliderGuider]

3. Fortunately we don't have to.

Doing something like that would be so bad for our karma. If we leave the job up to Mother Nature, the outcome is the same and our hands will be clean.

Party on! :party:

[mac2]

5. Over population is stressing our world.

Yet politicans won't say it. It might upset the religious clergy who want more followers. Little they care that homeless children who wonder the streets or wars for resources.

Instead our leaders think of ways to kill many of them and don't support family planning.

There is conflict here that can not be ignored.

[Dead_Parrot]

6. I hate to break it to you...

...but it rather looks like that's exactly what we're going to do.

a little late, but hey.

[Dogmudgeon]

7. Save the Planet -- without freezer burn!

That's the plan.

Kill almost everyone off in "easily-managed" crises over a 20-50 year period. Leave about 300-500 million alive. An era of Disaster Capitalism will allow us to wring every last penny from the victims before they take their final breath. At the end of it, we'd have the equivalent of a century of oil, and a huge amount of lebensraum in which to accomadate a new, secular http://www.quiverfull.com/">Quiverfull movement.

Of course, since the Earth itself is heavily contaminated with naturally-occurring nuclear material, it might be even more advisable to move the entire ecosystem to Mars. It would be a big job, but we could use ethanol. And hemp. And acid.

Especially acid.

--p!
In the words of Chief Seattle:
"Are you guys CRAZY?!"

[hogwyld]

16. Well, as the current food crisis shows

We may be at the tipping point of a self fulfilling depopulation era. Without oil, food becomes excessively expensive for the developing world, leading to starvation, which leads to fewer people to raise crops, etc.

[NNadir]

9. You should run for President of Greenpeace.

This is precisely their policy.

[GliderGuider]

10. Anyone want a nice biscuit of Soylent Greenpeace?

[ChazII]

17. That is the thought that crossed my mind, too. n/t

[truebrit71]

11. What are you doing here? Shouldn't you be off somewhere touting the safety of radioactive energy?

;-)