There are 2-4 HOV/toll lanes in the middle depending on where you are in the city. I only see 2 in this photo, and they aren’t called out in OP’s title.
I’ve literally had this argument on lemmy multiple times. It always goes like this:
Me: [some comment to the effect of “the planet is dying”]
Them: the planet will be fine. Yes all life will perish, but the earth itself will continue.
Me: . . .
Them: What. It’s just the fact. Don’t worry about the planet.
Sometimes they quote Carlin without realizing it and without context so to them it’s not a joke about how fucked up we are, it’s a simple truth without any additional layers. It’s a little boggling.
Climate change isn’t going to be an existential threat for a very long time. Realistically we’re making life incredibly difficult and expensive for ourselves. Population numbers will drop markedly over time. But people don’t see that this is still something to take urgent action on.
Depends on if you work outside for a living or live near a coastline or a forested area. It won’t be like a Star Trek: The Original Series where everyone’s in a big room and a red glow starts pulsating and we all groan and crumple to the floor. No, it won’t be like that.
It’ll be like heat exhaustion exacerbated a hitherto unknown heart condition that deaded you. Or a Cat 6 hurricane rolled a tree over you. Or failing crops mean you couldn’t fight off COVID-26 or whatever.
No, we’re not going to all die at once, as such. Depending on your timeframe for “at once”.
I dunno, maybe. I mean, technically they were right but even when I agreed, and explained how while that’s correct it’s also beside the point, they didn’t like that either.
It’s like talking about powers and saying “The square of 4 is 16” and they’ll bleat “Actually, a square is a shape” and you’re trying to find a way to tell them that their contribution is absolutely worthless and irrelevant to the topic.
No, it’s not the “best kind of correct”, it’s being an asshole.
That’s the joke, though.
The character being quoted, from Futurama, is usually insufferable and often miserable.
Edit: Interestingly, the character is also relatively well liked and generally appreciated by the rest of the Planet Express crew. It’s a pretty nuanced quote, in context. It kind of says “You’re not wrong, and your correction is arguably unnecessary and objectively objectionable, but we love you, anyway.”
not even all life. i’m sure some microbe or spore will survive long enough past human extenction and life will flourish once again. there are some very robust little lifeforms out there, living in boiling volcanic water or surviving frozen in permafrost. i’m sure some can manage in high CO2 levels and hot climate.
Life existed long before there were any significant levels of oxygen in the air. I doubt humans can undo much of the ~20% oxygen level that exists today. And I think that’s reason enough that life even bigger than microbes won’t die out.
Yes all life will perish, but the earth itself will continue.
Why would all life perish? From what I’ve heard and read about nuclear disaster exclusion zones, humans disappearing tends to make space for other forms of life that had previously been displaced by cities full of humans and such. To my understanding long time life probably won’t care about anything for the next few million years.
Short term many or most humans might die or suffer. I don’t think it’s easy to predict how fragile humankind is, civilization may crumble. I doubt all of humankind will be gone in a thousand years, though I wouldn’t bet against a semi “post apocalyptic” future.
Basically it’s due to the heat, acidification of the ocean, and the massive drop in oxygen production as the ocean acidifies.
Most of the oxygen we breathe is produced by microorganisms in the ocean and as the ocean gets more acidic (from absorbing CO2 from the air) and hotter (from greenhouse effects) it makes it harder for those little fellas to survive. And when they die their impact on our breathable air goes away. And if course the stuff that’s eats those organisms no longer have food and due off.
That’s not even mentioning just the heating from greenhouse effects making unlivable temperature conditions (humidity + heat = unable to cool down and overheat) more likely to occur.
All life wouldn’t perish per se but the current complex animals we have (and us humans) would be greatly impacted to say the least.
Do I understand this right that the really big argument here is actually ocean acidification? I can’t really believe that this wouldn’t open up niches for other life forms in oceans. I’m certain that complex animals will be greatly impacted - they already are - but temperature shifts will lead to animals migrating and complex life will keep flourishing one way or another.
I feel as though the assumption that humans had the ability to kill all complex life like some people suggest is exaggerating the significance of humans. To my understanding humans have about the same impact as many other of the more impactful species do and while many have lead to big changes on the planet, to my knowledge none have managed to come close to “ending all life”. That’s reserved for grander desasters, either from inside Earth or extraterrestrial.
There’s a chance that the aluminum residue from hundreds of annual rocket launches will destroy the ozone layer, without which the earth will lose its atmosphere relatively quickly.
*the aluminum is from all of our satellites burning up on reentry, which makes way more sense.
The aluminum and other metals in the space crafts bond with the ozone, which could fuck with our magnetosphere. It turns out it’s mostly from satellites burning up on reentry, which makes way more sense though.
If the ozone layer fills with metallic alloys, it fucks with the magnetosphere, potentially to the point that the magnetosphere no longer protects us from solar winds, and that would lose us the atmosphere.
It also might not be that serious, but there’s no way to know until there’s a problem. Companies are rapidly increasing the number of artificial satellites in our orbit without any consideration to the potential consequences though.
Is this similar to the ozone depletion and ozone holes that were always a big deal in the early 2000s and had lead to bans of chlorofluorocarbons eg in refrigerants and other products, or is this an entirely different topic?
To me it sounds similar so I wonder why the danger of Earth losing its atmosphere “very quickly” hadn’t caused panic back then, it was only things like “stay inside so you don’t get sunburns”. Though the atmosphere disappearing would be a way bigger deal.
It’s different because these are now metallic compounds, which can become magnetically charged and may be able to affect the magnetosphere.
The magnetosphere is basically the ball of magnetic force around the earth that insulated us from solar winds.
Solar winds can destroy planetary atmospheres, when the planet isn’t otherwise protected.
The hole in the ozone layer was also a problem, but it’s more because the ozone layer protects us from a lot of ultraviolet light. The hole (which was not exactly a hole, but that works better for marketing) would have caused a bunch of cancer and exposed us to higher levels of toxic ozone on the ground, which are both big problems, but not for all life on earth
I feel as though the assumption that humans had the ability to kill all complex life like some people suggest is exaggerating the significance of humans
It absolutely is. There are microbes that thrive at the bottom of the ocean in the boiling acidic conditions of hydrothermal vents. There is absolutely no way anything humans can do at this point would kill ALL life on the planet. There will absolutely be some specialist microbe somewhere that looks at whatever we did to the planet and says ‘yup, now is my time to shine!’.
Just a heads up, you quoted me writing “kill all complex life (…) is exaggerating”. Then as far as I understand you wrote “it absolutely is [an exaggeration]”. Then you argued that surely microbes would survive. However, to my knowledge microbes do not count as complex life. Was that intentional?
I wasn’t trying to prove what would survive, merely show how resilient life can be. If a simple microbe is guaranteed to survive in hell, something more complex able to behaviourally adapt/relocate is likely to as well. The greatest danger to complex life is having nothing to feed on.
Tropical fish might have to survive in the Arctic Ocean, or grasses in the northern prairies, insects of a zillion different types and sizes. Life, uh, finds a way.
We won’t kill everything. No matter what we do. Life will continue and more of it than anyone thinks will, even of the plants and animals. It is humans and most of the large animals and intolerant plants that need fear the impending Climate catastrophe.
I didn’t say it’d kill all complex life, I said complex life would be greatly impacted.
For example ocean acidification is tempered by reacting with build ups of calcium which is the building blocks of many things in the ocean. Shelled critters and corals immediately come to mind as examples of directly impacted complex life.
As the corals die and can no longer form due to acidification that whole ecosystem collapses.
The stuff that eats the phytoplankton (sensitive to ocean acidification and heat) no longer can eat it due to it dying along with the other little micro organisms, also suffers from ecological collapse.
A big issue that impacts complex life is how quickly it can adapt to the changes in their ecosystem and if they can find new places to go or new things to eat.
For example E. Coli: it has quick generations so it can adapt really quickly. This experiment has been going since the late 80s and the E. Coli has gone through over 70,000 generations and they’ve seen a lot of changes. If you went back that many human generations it would take you back before modern homo sapiens.
I didn’t say it’d kill all complex life, I said complex life would be greatly impacted.
True! I tried to acknowledge that with my first paragraph and add that they already are greatly impacted. My second paragraph wasn’t aimed at your person, I merely wanted to bring it up/let it out.
Because the threat is not a nuclear winter. It’s the disruption of all environmental systems that regulate the planet that is the threat in question. Which, in turn, disrupts the food chain, which starves whatever requires that food, which is for all intents and purposes, all life.
I don’t understand how this is such a conversation with so many people here.
Well disruptions of a system eventually lead to new, different forms of stability where things will settle down. I can’t imagine life is as fragile as you make it.
Having the ability to kill all complex life sounds like a misconception humans made up. After all, humankind always liked feeling important, feeling special and putting itself in the center: pretending they life at the center of a disc, pretending the whole universe revolves around the planet, pretending only human bodies were inhabited by an eternal soul, pretending an all-powerful being cared about them, pretending they’re the peak of evolution, pretending machines could never outperform them.
Humans always try to find new things that make them unique and set them apart from other forms of life. Yet they keep getting disproven.
The reason I use the term “human” is because this phenomenon seems to exist throughout all of history, it wasn’t limited to one specific person or culture or era. This is also why I gave so many examples. If you think there’s a better way to convey the point without using this term, let me know.
All life wouldn’t perish, the only things that will be left will be certain bacteria, phagocytes and viruses that can tolerate and indeed will likely proliferate in extreme environments. Everything larger then that will die of starvation due to a cascade of failing systems, likely starting with the death of the marine biosphere when the temperature rises to unsustainable levels and/or the pH lowers too much for the same effect. Though of course no one really knows what will actually happen because there are too many unknown variables.
There is absolutely, unequivocally, no evidence that this will happen and no serious scientific prediction that this will happen from climate change has ever been made.
The science illiteracy here is getting almost as bad as the right wingers.
But we do know because thousands of hardworking scientists have devoted their lives to answering this question.
If you want to have fun speculating wildly then be clear that this is what you’re doing and don’t frame it as things that “will” happen.
Sorry this is a pet peeve of mine because I think it feeds into a paralyzing pessimism. People need to understand that we aren’t doomed to feel like they can work for a better future.
Even life will never perish. We’re certainly going to cause an apocalyptic level extinction event, taking many species with us, but life will always find a way.
There is one single planet we know of that hosts complex organisms. Dont go claiming extraordinary things like that, when all evidence points to the opposite. Life is extremely fragile, and only comes about in very specific conditions. New data models show we may be the only creatures capable of communicating vast distances in the entire galaxy. We should be treating this with the severity it actually has, potential universal blackout. What is the universe if there is nothing there to experience it?
That’s very lovely, but ultimately egotistical. I mean, I romanticise about it too, but the universe ultimately just… is. The only severity is for us humans. No other species has a sense of “species” as a community AFAIK. Heck, even humans have a terrible track record. We can’t even seem to sterilise machines we sent to space no matter how hard we try, even after being exposed to outer space. That’s the evidence we have.
From our perspective, only human eyes record history. Without us around to experience and document the universe, is it any different from not existing at all? It doesn’t matter that the universe is. What is is if there is nothing around to define it?
I just don’t really understand the point of the question. I care about “the planet” because I feel empathy for my fellow humans and would like to leave a healthy environment for the future generations to come. I won’t leave any offspring. So when I die, my linage ends. After I die I will stop experiencing anything. And yet I still care. But I only care because my brain is wired to feel empathy.
I don’t care at all that the universe might have no one to experience it when our sun blows up. As statistically unlikely as that might be.
I mean you dont have to care. I do. I care that this vast universe might never been seen by human eyes. Because I feel like it is our duty to experience and record as much of this as possible. I truly believe we are the universe experiencing itself, and dammit we better experience it all.
Ok, let the downvotes come but I’m one of those people. And the point I’m trying to make is that the planet and life itself will survive and probably even be better off without humans.
Just look at what happened after the extinction event that killed the dinosaurs. Humans are causing the next extinction event and afterwards life will just start fresh again.
So no, saving the planet is not the goal. Saving humanity and most of all other current life is. And if that’s what you want to accomplish then that’s what you should talk about, specifically.
. . . the planet and life itself will survive . . .
How are you defining “life itself”?
. . . and probably even be better off without humans.
I’d say that goes without saying.
Humans are causing the next extinction event and afterwards life will just start fresh again.
Start “fresh”? Like with single-celled organisms? Maybe a billion years later we’ll be back eating sandwiches? Okay, so what process created sustainable environments again? Humans left some sort-of-permanent damage. Nuclear waste, PFAS, etc. Sure a good ol’ pole shift and a few asteroid impacts and we’re back in business.
So no, saving the planet is not the goal. Saving humanity and most of all other current life is. And if that’s what you want to accomplish then that’s what you should talk about, specifically.
God this is fucking exhausting. The prevention of unmitigated and prolonged suffering by all sentient life is the goal, YES. Kudos to the possibly viable future space rock and the wisdom to acknowledge our utter inability to protect one single planet from ourselves is laughably inadequate and - CLEARLY - irrelevant.
IMO, it is a distinction that is worthwhile. The universe is not anthropocentric. It doesn’t give two shits about humanity (it’s not, to our knowledge even sentient). Humanity is completely insignificant to nearly anything but humans. To me, it puts into perspective that noone and nothing in this indifferent universe is coming to save us from ourselves. It’s up to us.
Life will continue without us, just like it did before us. If the entirety of the world’s nuclear arsenals are used, there’s a good chance that microbes like Deinococus radiodurans will survive to evolve into new forms of complex life. The human species is far more fragile than the planet.
What distinction, pointing out that the existing astronomical and mineralogical structures will withstand even our worst impulses? Or changing “Saving the planet” to “slowing our inevitable dissolution due to corrupt thinking and possibly saving some ducks, too”?
The distinction is already very well known - as we can see, people drive for hundreds of miles so they can hop out and tell us the actual physical structure of Earth will remain, most likely. It’s the insistence on focusing on that distinction which slows our ability to talk about the core causes for this climate disaster. And it sounds a lot like the previous 100 years of:
there’s plenty of nature
we can’t live like savages, we must pollute to make money
what if we add lead to it and spray it all over everything and everyone? No knocks! Profit!
What the heck is an ozone layer
oh you’re a tree hugger huh
there’s no proof its caused by humans
there are always periods of heating and cooling
this is a Chinese hoax
well you drink water so you’re part of the problem
i’ll never give up eating meat, what are you, gay?
It’s too expensive to not destroy the environment
oil prices are the key to liberty and freedom
the future of clean energy is a nightmare because we’ll have to enslave humanity to extract rare minerals from protected wildlife areas to build large batteries
it’s fine, the earth will survive. Sure we’ll die and everything we commonly consider animal life will be killed but - ya gotta go sometime
Now you’re just lobbing together people who want to distinguish what exactly it is that needs saving with climate change deniers, conspiracy theorists and antivaxxers. Seems to me you just like boxes, really big boxes, in which to put in all the thing you dislike/disagree with or whatever.
You don’t care that I disagree with almost everything on your list except for 2 things that I think are really important to be specific about.
“Saving the planet”, which I’ve explained
”You drink water, so you’re part of the problem”, which is kind of true if you extrapolate and include it in your decision on if to have children.
Be my guest, I don’t care enough to continue this conversation beyond this point with a hammer that’s just looking for nails.
My whole complaint is that “Saving the planet” is intended to be a simple way to bring up the many, many things humans need to change to reverse our destructive path. They’re all implied in that.
By arguing a million more specific points instead (“well the rocks will still be here”, “actually, personal water consumption is a factor. . .”) is weakening the purpose of using that phrase. If I wanted to promote water conservation, I wouldn’t say “Let’s save the planet”, I’d say “let’s conserve water”.
The OP meme is about just that - showing the absurdity of arguing a single aspect of planetary destruction in order to - ?? In order to do what - Promote geological sciences? Dismiss environmental concerns? (This is my main gripe, fwiw.) Be cool and aloof? Scoring internet hot take points?
It’s all a ridiculous exercise in - well, exactly what we see here: Many comments pointing out obvious - and therefore pointless - exceptions to our species’ unconscionable destruction of the only habitat anyone has ever known. It’s just exhausting.
“actually, personal water consumption is a factor. . .”
If one is honest and looks at the data, personal scale water consumption is nearly meaningless.
Back to the main point though, I do not intend at all to brush off the destruction of habitats capable of supporting complex life but to be clear about the stakes. The world will continue to exist without us - we’re not that special. If we don’t work to stop a handful of sociopaths from rendering the world incapable of supporting human life, we’re screwed.
Can you be more specific about “the world” and “continuing to exist” because in all of these comments it seems like people think it’s easily going to return to some mythical Edenic paradise, just give it a few hundred years, and - no.
Being more specific, I basically mean object permanence. It won’t cease to exist without humans. Even that mythical Edenic paradise is an anthropocentric concept. Nothing like that existed for the majority of the earth’s history, nor did anything like it exist in most regions of the planet. Most known life is optimized for environments that are not particularly human-safe.
Nowhere do I suggest any of those things. In fact, opting out of anthropocentricism is breaking with views held throughout much of human history and used as an excuse to do nothing.
If the entirety of the world’s nuclear arsenals are used, there’s a good chance that microbes like Deinococus radiodurans will survive into new forms of complex life.
Y’all acting like this happening isn’t a literal catastrophe. You guys are all insane.
Nah mate. It would absolutely catastrophic. But the scope of who it would be catastrophic for is limited to the minority of known life. Humanity is insignificant to the universe but significant to us.
It’s also true. It’s a great way to bring home the reality to people who still think climate science is about preserving some wetlands while we continue as normal.
I don’t know, whenever I hear such arguing it makes me feel like it emphasises the issues we as humanity have gotten into, not belittles.
I mean, hearing “everything is doomed” is kind of epic and has it’s charm. Hearing “only the humanity is doomed” makes me feel shitty and want to do something about that.
tangentially related, CW: suicideProbably the same way one of the suicide prevention methods is de-romanticization of death, a lot of people expect death to be pretty, and it’s not
I’m not disagreeing necessarily (I know nothing about city planning), but wouldn’t a smaller highway just force people onto the side streets and city roads? How does a superhighway make traffic worse?
There are some good videos by notjustbikes on this topic, iirc the main problem is that big streets make people want to drive more which makes everything more crowded
Tbf there’s assholes who behave recklessly in traffic on every mode of transportation. I’ve been run into by a bike twice in the past few years. But guess what, if we built proper infrastructure for them, they wouldn’t choose the sidewalk in order to protect themselves from cars. Also, the choice between whether you’d rather a bike or a car runs into you is pretty obvious.
When I was 11 a cyclist ran me over while I was getting off a bus and then proceeded to scold me for a few minutes. I prefer a bruise and a scolding despite being in the right over a broken bone and an apology. But you do you.
Bicycles ARE the hazard. If your vehicle of choice isn’t able to reach and maintain the speed limit, then you are a hazard to everyone else on the road.
If you really don’t want to drive a car, buy a motorcycle.
How are they a hazard if they can’t even do damage to anyone, the cars however weigh multiple tons and would instantly kill anthing smaller than a car if hit at something above 30kmh
Bicycles are not able to maintain the speed limit, so they force traffic jams as cars wait to pass. Cyclists often don’t (or aren’t required to) obey the same laws that apply to cars, so they blow stop signs/lights and cut across lanes, forcing drivers to slam on their brakes to avoid hitting them. Bike lanes cut into valuable space for extra lanes that should be used for automobiles.
In my mind, bicycles fall into two categories: 1) Exercise equipment - Ride on a track or on private property. 2) Off-road vehicles - Go ride in the desert, the mountains, whatever you enjoy. Don’t ride on public roads and interfere with cars.
Your particular commute might not be feasible without a car, but many are. Adding bike infrastructures allows those who can commute by bike to do so, while freeing space on the road for those who can’t…
If you had access to good public transport you could take a train for those 30 miles and relax, work or read instead of wasting time being focused on traffic. But if there’s too much supply of roads built for the purpose of everyone driving their car everywhere, there won’t be much demand to build something like that.
Biking and walking can then be for mid and short distances, respectively. But both will be dangerous unless there’s proper infrastructure for that. And again, not happening until they stop the over supply of roads.
And for hauling the dry wall, yes, use a car. Imagine how much nicer traffic and parking will be if most commuters who aren’t transporting big loads aren’t in private vehicles.
The problem is that the infrastructure doesn’t exist, and introducing it is cost-prohibitive for large parts of the US. I would love to be able to take a train from my small town to the nearest metro area 30 miles away and then take a tube to a block away from my destination–but that’s just not going to happen in my lifetime, because the city can’t afford to install a subway, and the auto lobby won the war against commuter rail before I was born.
Could it be better? Sure. Might it become better? Maybe, but probably not in my lifetime.
In the meantime, people are de facto dependent on cars. Destroying infrastructure necessary to support the reality of how people must, through no fault of their own, travel punishes the traveling public without addressing the actual problem.
If we’re going to transition to better transit infrastructure, we first have to build the better infrastructure–and pay for it by eliminating unseating political opposition. Only then can we dismantle these kinds of monstrosities without disenfranchising the people who depend on them.
Yes absolutely! It’s a systemic issue and there’s no reason to blame the individuals who take cars because they’re literally not provided an alternative. It’s so fucked that you literally can’t do anything in much of the US if you can’t afford a car.
And of course it’s absolutely critical to start providing an alternative before dismantling existing infrastructure, fucking people over even further. It doesn’t have to start with a big rail line, even local buses and bike lanes and safe side walks within the small town will help a lot in reducing short car trips, such as to the shops or to school.
But for anything at all to happen, there will have to be enough problem in favour of traffic reform, and they’ll have to be loud. The car lobby is a huge opponent. But in local politics, like on a town level, they don’t have as much of a say. Maybe, just maybe, small change is possible
I know none of this will happen over night, but fingers crossed you’ll get to experience a better future in your lifetime.
Freight rail is still alive in my area–and that means commuter rail could be. But like a lot of places, the public has been duped into voting against their own interests. I don’t want to hijack the thread, but it’s an issue that–if you care about it, you should be voting for Amtrak Joe. Public transportation needs to be part of the nation’s climate agenda, and the Criminal Cheetoh wants to sacrifice us all on the altar of petrol.
Rail is a horrible solution for transporting people. If I could take a 15-minute train ride to work, it would suck in comparison to driving a car for 30 minutes or more. What if I get off work early? Now I’m waiting for the train. What if I want to go get groceries on my lunch break? Now I’m waiting for the train again. What if I’m working from home and something happens that requires me to go into the office? Looks like I’m going to be late, because I’m waiting for the train.
Modern society is built around motorized vehicles, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. I love being able to get in my car and be anywhere I need to in a somewhat short period of time.
If I had access to good public transport, I still wouldn’t take it. Driving a car gives me the freedom to come and go as I see fit. There’s no waiting for a bus or a train to show up. Not to mention, driving my car, I’m not forced to sit next to a meth addict on their 5th day awake and third week without a shower.
If driving wasn’t an option, you wouldn’t live 30 miles away from your job. Driving was an option, so you did and so did your neighbors. More neighbors move in, more cars, more traffic, more lanes, more neighbors, more cars, etc.
Alternatively, you move closer to work in a town with half decent sidewalks and walk or bike in. Bikes and people take up much less space which allows things to be closer together.
And yes, cars are necessary for hauling large objects over long distances, but how many vehicles in this photo do you think are carrying more than just people?
Most people will think traffic behave like water that you need to send through a network of pipes. It is not, traffic is made of humans and humans reactions will make traffic behave wildly differently than waters in pipes.
Some people and businesses will move next to the new highway for its supposed ease of access, creating traffic
some people might change their habits and go shopping to this place instead of that place, or getting a job far away from their home (or a home far away from home)
The exact reasons for the increase in traffic is complex and my example could be totally off. But we don’t need to know the exact reason for the increase in traffic, we know it happens because it has been observed on every road enlargement projects in the last decades.
Building larger highways always encourages more traffic. For a better explanation, check out this video by Adam Something. His youtube channel has a lot of interesting videos about transportation infrastructure.
An anecdote fully lacking in relevance on account of there being larger cities than Los Angeles which do not at all have the same problems efficiently moving their populations where they need to go.
Counting the service road is kind of cheating. In built up areas in Texas they’re de facto city streets that happen to exactly mirror the freeway. They have intersections, lights, businesses, etc.
Did you know that you can do a web search on somebody’s name and find information about them? Like this article.
In addition to being a Fox News commentator, Milloy is a lawyer and lobbyist with close financial and organizational ties to tobacco and oil companies.
Milloy disputed second hand smoke is harmful and considers climate change a hoax. He also claimed the studies of harm from DDT, global warming, Alar, breast implants, ozone depletion and mad cow disease are false.
Looks to be a joke, because no matter what you do to the planet, it will still be there. Existential threat to human and most life form of the planet, yes, existential threat to the planet itself? No.
lemmy.world
Oldest