First of all, carbon footprint in China is already far lower than in any developed country. Second, as I already pointed out, most countries simply outsourced their production to China.
@yogthos@lemmy.ml Carbon footprint is just like a globalist metric that has no bearing on the survivability of the majority of people over the next 10 to 15 years. The main metric that actually matters is land distribution. And how what percentage of the population has access to agricultural land where they can grow enough food to sustain themselves and their families. In China that number is 55%, which is very good. In Russia it’s 30%, but unfortunately it’s falling. It’s going in the wrong direction. Whereas in the West it’s 1 to 5 percent It’s quite possible many will perish the majority
Carbon footprint shows how much energy is being used per capita. Population density is way past the point where it’s practical for people to live off the land in some subsistence living scenario. What is more likely to happen is that we’ll see things like indoor farming being developed so that cities can feed themselves. This will become particularly important as climate continues to deteriorate, as indoor farms will make it possible to have stable environment to grow food in.
@yogthos@lemmy.ml indoor farming is much more energy intensive. You can’t defy the laws of physics sorry. Energy decline is certain, all feasts come to an end. The longer you stay in the denial and refuse to adapt the worse it is for you and your kindred. It is extremely practical to have land distribution because we have much better technology to make it possible, like high speed communication, local large language models, and permaculture. Huge percentage of food in Russia is already produced on small family plots. It is actually the only good outcome available that makes sense with the geophysical constraints on energy.
Nobody is talking about defying laws of physics here. Your whole premise rests on fossil fuels running out and being essential for energy production. This is simply false.
First of all, carbon footprint in China is already far lower than in any developed country. Second, as I already pointed out, most countries simply outsourced their production to China.
@yogthos@lemmy.ml Carbon footprint is just like a globalist metric that has no bearing on the survivability of the majority of people over the next 10 to 15 years. The main metric that actually matters is land distribution. And how what percentage of the population has access to agricultural land where they can grow enough food to sustain themselves and their families. In China that number is 55%, which is very good. In Russia it’s 30%, but unfortunately it’s falling. It’s going in the wrong direction. Whereas in the West it’s 1 to 5 percent It’s quite possible many will perish the majority
Carbon footprint shows how much energy is being used per capita. Population density is way past the point where it’s practical for people to live off the land in some subsistence living scenario. What is more likely to happen is that we’ll see things like indoor farming being developed so that cities can feed themselves. This will become particularly important as climate continues to deteriorate, as indoor farms will make it possible to have stable environment to grow food in.
@yogthos@lemmy.ml indoor farming is much more energy intensive. You can’t defy the laws of physics sorry. Energy decline is certain, all feasts come to an end. The longer you stay in the denial and refuse to adapt the worse it is for you and your kindred. It is extremely practical to have land distribution because we have much better technology to make it possible, like high speed communication, local large language models, and permaculture. Huge percentage of food in Russia is already produced on small family plots. It is actually the only good outcome available that makes sense with the geophysical constraints on energy.
Nobody is talking about defying laws of physics here. Your whole premise rests on fossil fuels running out and being essential for energy production. This is simply false.