all 61 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 26 points 3 months ago (1 child)

To be fair, it is a number I would be curious about because I just want to know. So I looked up the article:

https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/how-much-does-human-breathing-contribute-to-climate-change

be mad; read headlines; parrot social media; here's another quote:

In contrast, burning fossil fuels like coal releases CO2 which has been locked up for millions of years, producing a net contribution to global warming.

The article is literally blaming capitalism

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago*

    Even more important context, right at the top of the article:

    Asked by: Peter Thatcher, Lancaster

    This was a response to a reader-submitted question to a science magazine.

    Everyone raging in the comments here has just blindly read the headline and the deliberately-misleading social post attached, and they’ve decided to be mad instead of using even an ounce of critical thinking. Drives me crazy how much people seem to want to be angry.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 52 points 3 months ago (11 children)

    It’s really hard to listen to blue checked accounts posting on social media owned by a trillionaire.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    Not to mention while peddling population reduction propaganda on the platform of the dude that had so many kids he had to start labeling them with serial numbers and coincidentally wants to colonise another (uninhabitable) planet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    Doesn't appear to be population control propaganda, he's saying Capitalism bad. How he defines Capitalism isn't clear, could be anything from /[non-state controlled manufacturing] to /[the west], or if they're particularly misinformed they could be using it synonymously with loose regulation, corruption, and monopoly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    He's not peddling it he's refuting it. Did you even reading comprehension skill

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (5 children)

    Well, you missed a word and a comma, so perhaps we’re not all perfect. Happy Sunday Ricky

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

    I'm certain Ricky hasn't missed them even a little bit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    He's not missing it he's omitting it. Did you even reading comprehension skill

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    Reading comprehension: you literally wrote the word "missed" in the comment I replied to. 😅

    Since it may have gone over your head, my previous comment was wordplay. You can have a pass if English isn't your first language.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 31 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    No, no they have a point. I feel like if we stopped say roughly 3,428 people from breathing that the world would start to heal.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    If we got rid of the rich that would mean less people breathing. The solution is obvious.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    We're barely capitalist, it's all scheming and legal privileges and crime at this point. Even capitalism requires an adherence to a ruleset and the rulers we have do not like following any rules.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 28 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    Nothing. Humans evolved with plants to complete the carbon cycle. Fossil fuels did not evolve, they are burned.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I quoted an article already but here's another:

    we humans are a significant contributor to global warming. But, in reality, the CO2 we’re breathing out is part of a natural cycle, by which our bodies convert carbohydrates from CO2-absorbing plants into energy, plus water and CO2. As such, we’re not adding any extra CO2.

    which fully supports your statement

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    So human breathing is net zero because we're just emitting carbon dioxide trapped in the food we just planted?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Correct. We are heterotroughs (CnH2n [different sugars and carbs] + O2 -> CO2 + H2O) and pants are autotroughs (CO2 + H2O + sunlight -> CnH2n [different sugars and carbs] + O2) we are complements and complete the carbon cycle.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    I thought fossil fuel evolved from the anaerobic decay of dinosaurs and prehistoric plankton mixing with sediment which put it under intense heat and pressure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    evolved is the wrong term here. Fossil fuels are formed. This is a meaningful distinction because both plants and animals are evolved and had time to adapt to the presence of the other to create a symbiotic relationship.

    Fossil fuels formation is a geological process. There is no cycle, and it is a process not dependent on living things to work the process.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago
    [–] 14 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Millenials and Gen Z are helping to combat this problem by having fewer kids. And yet, Billionaires complain about that, too. Lol.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    If we get rid of human breathing we will eventually get rid of man-made climate change.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    This is easy. Just stop breathing.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    They're not desperate. Their system still works and trickle money up.

    What they're doing is preparing you to make monthly payments for air breezing plans.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Near 100% I'd say.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    It's not "capitalism", it's corporations with zero governnental or moral limits.

    It's greed, manifest.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    And that shit is called science focus... It hurts.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    The are trying to make reducing carbon seem unrealistic

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    You know what, I think smoking Crack is a gold standard for, "the media." It's quite a crack addict thing to ponder, ya know? How much does human breathing contribute to climate change?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (8 children)

    I don't think theres a socioeconomic system that allows 9 billion people to live a modern life on earth without climate change. I vote we renew the USAID program that shipped condoms to the middle east and we make college free for women everywhere, that should about fix it.

    EDIT: And normalize meat only being an occasional meal instead of twice daily.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    You should work for the New York Times lmao.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (6 children)

    Known Tankie bootsucker, licker, tickler Alcholicorn accusing me of Propaganda, how quaint.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Wait you weren't doing a bit, imitating a NYT columnist whitewashing fascism?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Alright, I'll bite, how is free medical and education (and importantly taxing industry and the wealthy) "whitewashing fascism"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Starting from a premise of "There's too many humans", blaming a poorer country for having too many children, then cleaning it up with things palatable to the average NYT reader is exactly how they do it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    The premise is the premise whether you like it or not, pal. You Tankies have been really weird about this issue ever since China, the largest polluter on earth, announced a reversal of their population policies and started promoting growth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    While the premise from the headline is ridiculous, considering the contribution to CO2 emissions caused by human metabolism is not.

    Humans don't have a good efficiency, compared to e.g. a electric motor.
    Also, the "fuel" used by humans itself typically already comes with a gigantic CO2 burden.

    That's also the reason that biking without electric assistance is not quite as carbon neutral as most people believe.

    Putting it this way: The primarily meat-based overconsumption prevalent in many western countries offers many opportunities to significantly reduce CO2.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago*

    A single Big Mac can power a gaming PC for 2 hours, a Tesla for ~2.5 miles, or a moderately active human for 6 hours.

    It could also take an e bike anywhere from 25-50 miles depending on the rider, terrain, and other factors.

    I don't know if I'd say we're "inefficient"...but we also don't carry around 1000lbs of batteries...even in America.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    There was capitalism in the 17th century. How about blaming the massive consumption of 8 billion people?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 18 comments in c/science_memes@mander.xyz view that post
    [–] 93 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Based on the pattern of, well, everything else, the most benefit would come if the billionaires stop breathing first.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Pretty sure you'll find scientific evidence supporting this stance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 49 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    So, on the face of it, we humans are a significant contributor to global warming. But, in reality, the CO2 we’re breathing out is part of a natural cycle, by which our bodies convert carbohydrates from CO2-absorbing plants into energy, plus water and CO2. As such, we’re not adding any extra CO2. In contrast, burning fossil fuels like coal releases CO2 which has been locked up for millions of years, producing a net contribution to global warming.

    I guess you could've been less angry if you were able to read past the first paragraph

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Over the years, I've put on a few pounds. The way I figure it, I'm sequestering carbon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I'm always looking for logical reasons to stay plump.

    I'm adding this one to my short list.

    1. Easier to float in water. Less likely to drown.

    2. Easier to not die of hypothermia

    3. Hard seats are less hard with tush cush

    4. Animals seem to like plump humans more (maybe they assume we know where the food is).

    5. Lower carbon footprint.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago

    Ecofacism. Again.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    The CO2 we breath out is recycled from carbon that is already on the Earth's surface. But much of the food we eat relies on fertilizer synthesized using fossil methane. That fossil methane is added to the atmosphere during production of synthetic fertilizer.

    Only people relying on food from synthetic fertilizer contribute to global warming, but that includes almost everyone because food labels don't mention it.

    Food producers do not tell us how much fossil emissions are required to make the food they sell us.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    I mean sure, breathing isn't the problem, but all that breathing leads to humans continuing to burn things so that they can have easier lives.

    Ultimately, breathing does lead to a polluted world. In a very technical sense.

  • source
  • 13 comments in c/funny@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 32 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    To be fair to them, it's a reader's question, and the answer says that in reality, the CO2 we’re breathing out is part of a natural cycle, by which our bodies convert carbohydrates from CO2-absorbing plants into energy, plus water and CO2. As such, we’re not adding any extra CO2. In contrast, burning fossil fuels like coal releases CO2 which has been locked up for millions of years, producing a net contribution to global warming.

    Source: https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/how-much-does-human-breathing-contribute-to-climate-change

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    To be fair to us, they didn't have to answer the question. It was a choice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Ah yes where every single publication simply must be the machinations of the capitalist class pulling the puppet strung editors of all news organisations everywhere simultaneously never failing in their aim to keep blame of climate change away from capitalism.

    OR

    The BBC is choosing to answer a dumb question with scientific rigior to show that "no, breathing out does not contribute to climate change" because some portions of the general public are really gullable and actually asked this question.

    But the bottom line is whilst this is a truly idiotic question I'd rather those people asked it because it means there's still a spark of curiosity and desire to learn rather than live in ignorance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    they want us to stop breathing

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Some people, by continuing to breath, have an outsized effect compared to others.

    Clearly the issue here is just prioritizing who stops breathing.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Capitalism is holding back on more environmentaly friendly power generation for maximum profit.

  • source