Food waste in general shouldn't be adding extra CO2 in the environment, unless they are extrinsically adding tons of CO2 to the system from e.g. synthetic chemicals derived from oil.
First of all, you *do* use synthetic chemicals derived from oil in agriculture -- well, more accurately, from natural gas (ammonia). Second, you *also* use extra amounts of oil-derived fuel to grow this waste food. And third, of course, there's also the issue of methane being much more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide, so even if you're neutral in terms of (physical) CO2 consumed and produced, you're still not necessarily neutral in terms of CO2-equivalent GHG emissions.
and water is a much stronger greenhouse gas than methane.
The antihumanists should just unite behind water, pretty sure people are so dumb now they can be convinced to stop drinking and get all this over with quickly.
Antihumanists? You mean the people who are willfully abusing the biosphere to the point that it won't support humanity, despite the obvious outcomes for their fellow humans?
Antihumanists are the people characterised by Agent Smith in the Matrix.
People who believe human beings are a cancer of the planet. Mostly follow the work of Thomas Robert Malthus, fund eugenics programs like planned parent hood and forced sterilisations of people the deem particularly unworthy.
Lot of them in the US after the mass immigration from Germany after WWII.
You can recognize humans' negative impact on the planet without being antihuman.
I'm antiunsustainablebehavior.
Frankly I suspect the planet could support a lot more humans, but only if we practiced sustainable agriculture, and it's hard to do that in our modern system. A lot of pharmaceuticals can for example survive composting of poop, which in surprisingly short order can turn crap into soil. So even a sewage sludge recovery system can actually be causing problems.
Seems like a stupid argument to me. (Score:1, Insightful)
Food waste in general shouldn't be adding extra CO2 in the environment, unless they are extrinsically adding tons of CO2 to the system from e.g. synthetic chemicals derived from oil.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Seems like a stupid argument to me. (Score:1)
and water is a much stronger greenhouse gas than methane.
The antihumanists should just unite behind water, pretty sure people are so dumb now they can be convinced to stop drinking and get all this over with quickly.
Re: (Score:1)
The antihumanists should just unite behind water
Antihumanists? You mean the people who are willfully abusing the biosphere to the point that it won't support humanity, despite the obvious outcomes for their fellow humans?
Re: (Score:-1, Flamebait)
Antihumanists are the people characterised by Agent Smith in the Matrix.
People who believe human beings are a cancer of the planet. Mostly follow the work of Thomas Robert Malthus, fund eugenics programs like planned parent hood and forced sterilisations of people the deem particularly unworthy.
Lot of them in the US after the mass immigration from Germany after WWII.
Re: (Score:2)
You can recognize humans' negative impact on the planet without being antihuman.
I'm antiunsustainablebehavior.
Frankly I suspect the planet could support a lot more humans, but only if we practiced sustainable agriculture, and it's hard to do that in our modern system. A lot of pharmaceuticals can for example survive composting of poop, which in surprisingly short order can turn crap into soil. So even a sewage sludge recovery system can actually be causing problems.
Re: (Score:1)
Either you believe antihumanists have a right to stop humans' negative impact on the planet without being antihuman or you dont.
There isn't really any middle ground there.
Re: Seems like a stupid argument to me. (Score:2)
Either you believe antihumanists have a right to stop humans' negative impact on the planet without being antihuman or you dont.
Mu