Your thoughts about Greta Thunberg

[franky1]

over population is not the problem

buying land and having goverments subsidise it so people cant farm or build on it, and then make people have to cram together in cities makes it appear like over population

did you know in many countries there are LESS school chairs, less hospital beds than previous years. thus making it appear like schools and hospitals ar over crowded.

if you take the stats of the size of earths land. and subtract the inhabitable amount

The total land surface area of Earth is about 57,308,738 square miles, of which about 33% is desert and about 24% is mountainous. Subtracting this uninhabitable 57% (32,665,981 mi2) from the total land area leaves 24,642,757 square miles or 15.77 billion acres of habitable land.

2 acres/8k metres a person or 8acres/32kmetres for a family of 4
far more than people need to live and grow thir own food on
there are ways to turn salt water into clear water and use the salt byproduct to be used for many things.

there are solar panels to generate electric and LED lights that can emit more of the needed light wavelength than the sun to grow plants meaning plants can grow UNDER a roof of solar panels sustainably

for instance a 2metre shade caused by a solarpanel only needs 24 watts of red/blue light to shine on the plants.
thus if you have only 7 hours of daylight a 300w sp can light up 6 'floors' of plants below it for 14 hours

thus its like having 32km of land covered with solar panels with equivalent of 256km of plant growing

[1714920286]

1714920286

[1714920286]

1714920286

[1714920286]

1714920286

[iluvbitcoins]

..........

The entire earths population can fit in the Grand Canyon.

There was a good video I saw on YouTube, you can watch it here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_iNRGac_uM

It's called 'What if Everyone lived in just one city'.

At the density of Singapore, the entire world population would fit in the state of Texas&Oklahoma.

[franky1]

..........

The entire earths population can fit in the Grand Canyon.

There was a good video I saw on YouTube, you can watch it here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_iNRGac_uM

It's called 'What if Everyone lived in just one city'.

At the density of Singapore, the entire world population would fit in the state of Texas&Oklahoma.

but thats cramming people in one location. without calculating the extra space needed for electric, food and clean water production(your example is just the housing)

no one denies people can be densly crammed into small area's. but the myth wasnt the people. it was the land neded for food/energy and water production, plus workspace and product manufacturing.

however people needing a single story house for 4 and land for agriculture is possible without issues
then if you layer people ontop of each other because its possible to grow plants multilayered(stackd ontop of each other) reduces the square metres needed

[aoluain]

i think she is wasting her time!

as long a commercialism continues so too will climate change, both are linked.

does she and the people around her really think a 16 year old schoolgirl can convince
us to basically revert back to the stone age in order to save the planet. everything
we do is affecting climate change [whether you believe in CC or not]

I'm amazed at how she has all of a sudden appeared in the media and how she has b
been pushed forward at such a young age.

[Silber]

Greta is a puppet. Her purpose is to make the western middle class to be quite agreeable to reduce their life standard and to increase the taxes for the middle class at the same time.

[franky1]

I'm amazed at how she has all of a sudden appeared in the media and how she has b
been pushed forward at such a young age.

in sweden her family are famous/popular. so she got some screen time.. then it went viral

its the same as 'harmione granger' (emma watson) become an ambassador purely because she was a well known face.
if she never starred in harry potter she would not have got the same viral fame for her opinions

as for greta.
if she never had actor parents/grandparents. no one would have known her name or cared.

..
anyways
gretas message is.. but should not be 'do something or ill hate you'
but should be.. do this, this and this and the world will thank you

she totally misses the point by not saying what the 'something' should be.

its like a kid asking a parent to make them dinner...
.. but after making the dinner the kid says 'i didnt want that, it nasty'
atleast tell your superiors what you want so they dont waste their time

[Mometaskers]

I see her the same way as Mother Theresa - a fraud. I'm not saying climate change is not real but the timing really makes one suspicious. She just came out of nowhere and then next thing you know she's at the UN. The "don't insult your target market" commonsense also eluded her same way it did Gillette. 

The whole drama about her getting stuck somewhere in South America was also hilarious.

[iluvbitcoins]

..........

The entire earths population can fit in the Grand Canyon.

There was a good video I saw on YouTube, you can watch it here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_iNRGac_uM

It's called 'What if Everyone lived in just one city'.

At the density of Singapore, the entire world population would fit in the state of Texas&Oklahoma.

but thats cramming people in one location. without calculating the extra space needed for electric, food and clean water production(your example is just the housing)

no one denies people can be densly crammed into small area's. but the myth wasnt the people. it was the land neded for food/energy and water production, plus workspace and product manufacturing.

however people needing a single story house for 4 and land for agriculture is possible without issues
then if you layer people ontop of each other because its possible to grow plants multilayered(stackd ontop of each other) reduces the square metres needed

Singapore doesn't produce food&electricity?

[xhomerx10]

..........

The entire earths population can fit in the Grand Canyon.

There was a good video I saw on YouTube, you can watch it here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_iNRGac_uM

It's called 'What if Everyone lived in just one city'.

At the density of Singapore, the entire world population would fit in the state of Texas&Oklahoma.

but thats cramming people in one location. without calculating the extra space needed for electric, food and clean water production(your example is just the housing)

no one denies people can be densly crammed into small area's. but the myth wasnt the people. it was the land neded for food/energy and water production, plus workspace and product manufacturing.

however people needing a single story house for 4 and land for agriculture is possible without issues
then if you layer people ontop of each other because its possible to grow plants multilayered(stackd ontop of each other) reduces the square metres needed

Singapore doesn't produce food&electricity?

 Not so much food.  Around 90% of their food must be imported.

[franky1]

singapore does currently..
but if you cram the world population into the space of singapore like the video suggests about living space to sleep use bathroom and watch tv. a space of singapore does not include sustainable farming/electric generation space
the video was purely about the housing space required


my point is that each person if evenly spaced apart with their own allotment of land to grow food, have a solar farm and a desalination system has 8000metres of land per person which adequetely fits into the 'habitable land' amount.
meaning no issues

i then went on to say that because of technology and research its possible to instead of have a one floor house per person but an apartment block of people stacked ontop of each other.. maybe 6 floors high with use of LED red/blue light to grow plants and then solar farm on the roof. that means the population can grow 6x larger. without 'overcrowding'

then knowing that plants can be grown 'indoors' using LED and solar if the 6x population reached a tipping point then using the other inhabitable land can occur meaning 12x population again without over crowding

then if that reached a tipping point then just stack up the 6 floor apartment block to be 12 floor apartments by having solar on the sides and not just the roof
=24x population

and thats a 24 block apartment per 8000metre area.. 24 people per many hundred of metres apart distance to the next apartment block allowing for 192BILLION people total..
means still not over crowded

the main point is this
there is no need to cram everyone into a single megacity when 24 people per few hundred metres can total 192billion population that can live sustainably

[ðºÞæ]

70% of e-waste is toxic landfills, first step to combat out of control waste is to reuse.
He's trying to save this planet and all the courts could do is throw him in jail.
https://youtu.be/Uv_zBYlZJR8
A legal farce by the "microsoft" guys.

[iluvbitcoins]

..........

The entire earths population can fit in the Grand Canyon.

There was a good video I saw on YouTube, you can watch it here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_iNRGac_uM

It's called 'What if Everyone lived in just one city'.

At the density of Singapore, the entire world population would fit in the state of Texas&Oklahoma.

but thats cramming people in one location. without calculating the extra space needed for electric, food and clean water production(your example is just the housing)

no one denies people can be densly crammed into small area's. but the myth wasnt the people. it was the land neded for food/energy and water production, plus workspace and product manufacturing.

however people needing a single story house for 4 and land for agriculture is possible without issues
then if you layer people ontop of each other because its possible to grow plants multilayered(stackd ontop of each other) reduces the square metres needed

Singapore doesn't produce food&electricity?

 Not so much food.  Around 90% of their food must be imported.

If the entire world population can fit into basically Texas, you could use a couple more states for the food etc. It would be impossible to use up all 50 states.

Besides, there are entire oceans which can sustain people. If overpopulation was actually a problem we would start living on the oceans or make land from them as the Netherlands does.

Antarctica would be an option as well.
By the time that would happen we would also start colonizing other planets (Tesla is supposed to start a colony on Mars in 10 years).

[franky1]

again for emphasis
you dont ned to squeeze everyone into sigapore or texas.
you dont then have to dedicate other stats for farm/solar land.

EACH PERSON GETS TO HAVE 8000m of space and can have people spread out and live at a nice distance apart from each other

there is NO REASON to turn just texas into a megacity

[mindrust]

..........

The entire earths population can fit in the Grand Canyon.

There was a good video I saw on YouTube, you can watch it here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_iNRGac_uM

It's called 'What if Everyone lived in just one city'.

At the density of Singapore, the entire world population would fit in the state of Texas&Oklahoma.

but thats cramming people in one location. without calculating the extra space needed for electric, food and clean water production(your example is just the housing)

no one denies people can be densly crammed into small area's. but the myth wasnt the people. it was the land neded for food/energy and water production, plus workspace and product manufacturing.

however people needing a single story house for 4 and land for agriculture is possible without issues
then if you layer people ontop of each other because its possible to grow plants multilayered(stackd ontop of each other) reduces the square metres needed

Singapore doesn't produce food&electricity?

 Not so much food.  Around 90% of their food must be imported.

If the entire world population can fit into basically Texas, you could use a couple more states for the food etc. It would be impossible to use up all 50 states.

Besides, there are entire oceans which can sustain people. If overpopulation was actually a problem we would start living on the oceans or make land from them as the Netherlands does.

Antarctica would be an option as well.
By the time that would happen we would also start colonizing other planets (Tesla is supposed to start a colony on Mars in 10 years).

Living on the oceans... starting to colonize planets... to sustain 8 billion people? Are you mad? Will you still think same when the population reaches 20 billion?

I would rather prefer the way of Thanos than feeding billions of unnecessary mouths. He definitely makes more sense.

That's if I had to choose between these options.

The one which makes the most sense is teaching people to make kids not more than they could afford to feed but like I said, we already failed there.

Agent Smith was also right. Human are like virus. We won't be able stop till we kill our host. THE EARTH.

[ðºÞæ]

..........

The world has a shrinking population, fertility rate of 2.1 is needed to sustain current population Europe has 1.6 Japan 1.4.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYZPTaV-RcQ

‘One Child Nation’
https://youtu.be/RdkHA_-xryk

[eddie13]

People could stop polluting with toxic chemicals and littering.. Other than that their is no problem..
CO2 is not a problem..

[seoincorporation]

People could stop polluting with toxic chemicals and littering.. Other than that their is no problem..
CO2 is not a problem..

CO2 is part of the problem, but we have other problems like the NOx and anything that produce heat... Another big problem is the production competition between china and USA, this was the main reason of USA leaving the Treaty of Paris. By doing this USA claim that they don't give a fuck the ambient, they just want to be productive like china.

[BADecker]

CO2 is the cure for the problem. More CO2 in the atmosphere produces more plants, because it is plant food. We need more food to survive. However...


In World First, Scientists Reprogram Bacteria to Exist Solely By Consuming CO2 From the Air

This means that the bacteria were able to build all of their biomass from air. This feat, which involved nearly a decade of rational design, genetic engineering and a sped-up version of evolution in the lab, point to an exciting new means of developing carbon-neutral fuels.

The research, which was conducted in the laboratory of Professor Ron Milo of the Weizmann Institute of Science, was reported this week in Cell.

The study began by identifying crucial genes for the process of carbon fixation—the way plants take carbon from CO2 for the purpose of turning it into such biological molecules as protein and DNA. After adding and rewiring the needed genes, the researchers found that many of the "parts" for the machinery that were already present in the bacterial genome could be used as is.

[xhomerx10]

CO2 is the cure for the problem. More CO2 in the atmosphere produces more plants, because it is plant food. We need more food to survive. However...


In World First, Scientists Reprogram Bacteria to Exist Solely By Consuming CO2 From the Air

This means that the bacteria were able to build all of their biomass from air. This feat, which involved nearly a decade of rational design, genetic engineering and a sped-up version of evolution in the lab, point to an exciting new means of developing carbon-neutral fuels.

The research, which was conducted in the laboratory of Professor Ron Milo of the Weizmann Institute of Science, was reported this week in Cell.

The study began by identifying crucial genes for the process of carbon fixation—the way plants take carbon from CO2 for the purpose of turning it into such biological molecules as protein and DNA. After adding and rewiring the needed genes, the researchers found that many of the "parts" for the machinery that were already present in the bacterial genome could be used as is.

 Problem solved.  Now we just have to keep the bacteria in check...

[BADecker]

CO2 is the cure for the problem. More CO2 in the atmosphere produces more plants, because it is plant food. We need more food to survive. However...


In World First, Scientists Reprogram Bacteria to Exist Solely By Consuming CO2 From the Air

This means that the bacteria were able to build all of their biomass from air. This feat, which involved nearly a decade of rational design, genetic engineering and a sped-up version of evolution in the lab, point to an exciting new means of developing carbon-neutral fuels.

The research, which was conducted in the laboratory of Professor Ron Milo of the Weizmann Institute of Science, was reported this week in Cell.

The study began by identifying crucial genes for the process of carbon fixation—the way plants take carbon from CO2 for the purpose of turning it into such biological molecules as protein and DNA. After adding and rewiring the needed genes, the researchers found that many of the "parts" for the machinery that were already present in the bacterial genome could be used as is.

 Problem solved.  Now we just have to keep the bacteria in check...

Once they eat up all the available CO2 in the atmosphere, they will have to learn how to eat other carbon to survive. They might start on cellulose, and eat all our forests. No more wood. It would be like weaning them off CO2, and back onto a sugar-like compound.

BTW, the sugars, starches, and various forms of cellulose are all made from carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, often with as few other chemicals added in.

Since there are oil eating microbes, and metal eating microbes, maybe we could train some to build our cars for us, and convert the pollution back into fuel.