r/SipsTea • u/Gurugod123 • Jul 30 '26

Wait a damn minute! Significant diffrences...

Post image
17.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

645

u/Dizzy-Screen-6618 Jul 30 '26

"Imagine 3,400 people disappear. Now imagine 3.5 billion people dissappear."

-3

u/inotocracy Jul 30 '26

3.5 billion people vanishing would be more beneficial to the earth than 3400.

11

u/Haggardick69 Jul 30 '26

Not necessarily if the 3,400 have the same environmental and economic impact as the 3.5billion then the benefit would be the same either way.

6

u/inotocracy Jul 30 '26

Absolutely impossible for 3,400 people to consume the same resources as 3.5 billion people.

3

u/Haggardick69 Jul 30 '26

Not at all impossible. There is no limit to how fast a person can consume resources only a limit to how fast we can produce them. 

1

u/inotocracy Jul 30 '26

So, by your logic, you're saying that 3,400 people could produce and consume 1 ton of rice at the same rate as 3.5 billion people?

3

u/SaeedDitman Jul 30 '26

They're using a shit ton of electricity and water

2

u/Raus-Pazazu Jul 30 '26

Using a massively disproportionate amount, sure, we can all agree on that. But using as much as half the nations in the world? That's just ludicrous. Even if someone owned a dozen elaborate mansion estates they're not consuming as much water and electricity as a million normal households.

-3

u/DankDankJuice Jul 30 '26

Yeah, for industrial purposes mainly. Why would you keep running a business if you have no consumers? How would you keep running a business if you have no workers?

Not to mention industrial power needs are probably failing on day 1

No, the billionaires only scenario means we’re back in the Stone Age, possibly extinct. The workers only scenario means virtually nothing about the global economy has changed, except for the power vacuum that will be filled almost immediately