Few things before I get down talked

  • I am not an extremists and I believe in Tech, I mention it because getting rid of everything like cars, airplanes is for my understandings not an option for modern society. I know some people here see it different but please keep that in mind.
  • I know some things I mention are highly controversial because everyone has its own opinion but I think proposed ideas are necessary trade-off.

You do not need to like it but this is what I suggest.

  • Invest more money into Fusion Power.
  • Remove all nuclear power plants and replace them with wind, earth thermal energy, water, and the other usual renewable suspects.
  • Create more decentralized networks for energy create more batteries on bigger scale, the money we use for nuclear and power plants can be used to create batteries facilities near wind off-shore parks because wind and sun is not always blowing and shining.
  • Declare coal and nuclear illegal, positive effect for climate directly because no nuclear threat + better air quality + less people die because coal has bad history regarding your health when you work there or live near around it.
  • 2 humans only policy. I think 2 children are enough. Of course this is against freedom but I see this as necessary evil. However, I am against shooting someone, the punishment should more to cut funding from government in case you violate it. I am not someone who says you should get rid of the child or something, because there is still rape etc. I think life should be valued but there should be some restrictions on how you punish someone because otherwise people find excuses to bypass this rule. I am aware that this is alone is controversial and delicate topic.
  • Renew the energy networks, the ones we have a not really designed to be used the way we use it and we need fundamental upgrades to handle decentralization. So we need money here to improve the situation.
  • Money for research should be a much higher priority. We should fund good ideas and instead of wasting 2 trillion each year on war, weapons etc, we should use the money for good. This also can be used for medical things.
  • Create at least in the cities better infrastructure for bicycles and open supermarkets 24 7. In my country supermarket often closes and running them maybe 24 7 helps to hire more people, easily ride with your bicycle into it whenever you have time, after work etc.
  • Getting rid of plastics or drastically reduce it, the effect would be noticeable I think, see oceans, micro-plastics, cancer rates etc.
  • Support more vegans and find better ways to make it more attractive. I tried it several times and it tastes awful, maybe I had bad recipes or wrong guidance, aka none. I think we should make people more aware of their options and directly provide guidance in the supermarket or via apps funded directly by the government so you know it is open source, no scam and everyone could help submitting new things.
  • War should be declared - useless - and we should work together. Getting rid of all weapons in the world should be a long time goal. I mention it but that is just not realistic until 2050, but I personally would like to see that we evolve to such a point. Positive effects are so many, I do not think I need to mention them all.

This is no end solution and only my first abstract what I think is necessary and needs to be done. I clearly want to outline that all of this is a team effort and we need to come to an common ground and understand + act pretty fast on this if we really want to turn something bad around to gain more time.

🥺

    • CHEF-KOCH@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      Ideology behind the idea is resource management as well as that 2 kids are enough in terms of quality for those kids. We can debate of the number, 3 seems also reasonable. My idea or observation is more like when you have more kids you have less money and you need to share more with those kids which means your own life quality as well as the life quality for the kids is overall reduced. Less kids means you can focus more on those kids and care more for them.

      Your reference to too many kids is more a African problem, I only name this as example, in such countries your life depends on the next generations, meaning you need kids to survive when you become older. It is understandable that they produce more kids, but from the context it should be clear that I meant that this policy is mainly for cities as well as overpopulated places and not for Africans or cultures that depend on those factors. Their carbon footprint in such countries is in general lower and it plays less of an role because their children will usually not end up working in nuclear power plants, industry in general etc.

      Enforcing such a policy is also slippery slope to forced sterilizations and infanticides that childbearing people may be coerced into doing.

      I do not want sterilizations either but punishment in form of something by the govt should be enforced to avoid bypassing such a rule.

      I think placing a focus on population control is counterproductive.

      I see this as only solution. Overpopulation is a problem and it will become worse combined with upcoming disasters and the fact that because of climate change you will one way or another over the long run struggle putting food on the table. The demand is high but no new resources are created to solve it. Starts with the fact that coffee beans are dying, goes over water resources as well as climate related problems directly.

      My ideology here is to improve life for everyone.

      • pingveno@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        Something like a 2 child policy is a solution looking for a problem. Current projections are that most population growth has already happened. Many countries are already below replacement, and the rest will reach that point soon.

          • pingveno@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 years ago

            Yup, which is exactly in line with what I said. There’s just not going to be much more population growth, so using draconian measures is unwarranted. Never implement something like that when there’s already a process that’s happening naturally that will do the same thing without the worst side effects.

            • CHEF-KOCH@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 years ago

              already a process that’s happening naturally that will do the same thing without the worst side effects.

              My proposal is not about natural selection. It addresses overpopulation, which is a problem, if there is no further growth or not is not the question, it is about maintaining the status quo because people are not willingly to sacrifice something, which this thread clearly demonstrated … I want more kids I want this … no but I this and that … hard reality is when you confronted with past action that clearly showed there is a problem, ignore it and continue like nothing happened…

              Glad you know how our population in the future will look like, will quote you in 10 years when we hit 10B with no end in sight as history showed us that we usually continue and not stop. But we will see who has last word here. Not much into speculation.

              • pingveno@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 years ago

                Who said anything about natural selection? Birth rates drop dramatically as wealth increases, women become more educated, birth control is more widespread, childhood mortality decreases, and cost to raise a child increases. This is widely documented across all countries. The best projections we have put the 10B population point at the end of the century.