Timeline for Would the death of 50% of the human population drastically reduce carbon dioxide levels?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 3, 2016 at 16:48 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | @user2448131 It would, unless you took great care in choosing which half. If you randomly removed 50% of the people from the world, human infrastructure would be overextended. Things would fall apart. Also, that 50% may include key personel who are very hard to replace. Then, of course, there is the rash of panic that's going to come from 50% of your neighbors dying around you, which will encourage you to pay attention to things besides the infrastructure. | |
| Jan 3, 2016 at 16:40 | comment | added | user2448131 | Would infrastructure necessarily collapse? You have half the people filling occupations, but only have half the consumers. | |
| Jan 3, 2016 at 10:46 | comment | added | Peteris | Of course, it matters how the half of population dies. There are many means of death (world war, nuclear strikes, gray goo, huge meteor or supervolcano) or possible consequences of infrastructure collapse (major fires, chemical and nuclear disasters from unmaintained facilities) which will have a much larger effect on CO2 than just the linear reduction of business as usual. | |
| Jan 3, 2016 at 5:43 | history | edited | Brythan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Typo fix.
|
| Jan 2, 2016 at 20:58 | vote | accept | Quark | ||
| Jan 2, 2016 at 22:50 | |||||
| Jan 2, 2016 at 20:50 | history | answered | Cort Ammon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |