Swimming sensation Michael Phelps has an Olympic recipe for success - and it involves eating a staggering 12,000 calories a day.
That's enough to feed SIX "ordinary" humans. Imagine all the CO2 created/emitted just to feed this one person! And for what? Just so that he can swim faster that any human being who has ever lived?
Such vanity and waste makes a mockery of the existential threat posed by global warming. At a time when we are entering the beginning of our extinction, such cavalier attitudes can no longer be tolerated.
If CO2 is really so dangerous, then the international community must come together to create a treaty that requires each signing nation to limit the caloric intake of its citizens to no more than 1,350 calories per day, and like China, limits each person to only a single child. 1,350 calories per day is generally enough to sustain the average person, and limiting people to this amount plus only one child would cut down on the amount of carbon emissions DRASTICALLY AND QUICKLY, as we would not need farm equipment in as many fields, nor would be have to produce fertilizer and other environmentally "unfriendly" agricultural products, nor destroy as many forests to make way for additional fields. In only one century's time, we could cut the human population, and therefore carbon emissions, by almost 50%. More than perhaps anything else, these two things would significantly improve the environment and reduce the effects of global warming.
Then, as populations decline, we could take the "excess" calorie production and redistribute it to the poor who can't feed themselves. Oh, wait a minute, on second thought redistributing food may not be such a good idea, after all, more people means more carbon, and carbon is the greatest threat of our age, so perhaps we should just let the poor die off, no? It sounds harsh, but sometimes you have to do harsh things for Gaia!
Even so, it seems unfair, and so unegalitarian, to single out one class, like the poor, for death. So, who will decide who dies and who gets food? Well, some benevolent, non-corrupt international governmental entity, perhaps like the UN (oh wait, bad example) will insure that food is fairly distributed to all chosen survivors.
But what about those people are manual laborers (Olympic athletes wouldn't count) and who therefore need more than 1,350 calories per day to survive? What to do? Well, we can no doubt rely on politicians to carve about appropriate, fair and unbiased exceptions to the calorie restriction laws--exceptions that will allow manual laborers, etc. to get more calories than the rest of us.
And I'm sure our political leaders will deem it necessary to carve out an exemption for themselves too. After all, we don't want our politicians to be making life and death decisions on an empty stomach, do we? No, the laws must ensure that the political class has all the additional nutritional and caloric inputs needed to properly govern.
I mean, I'm just sayin....