Have you ever had a friend or relative who was just in such poor health, who you basically expected to keel over and die any day now? If so, you probably know what I mean when you eventually just accept that the person you once knew is already dead, and all that's left is a husk that's just riding out the last bit of momentum they've got until they fade away. And then when they finally do die, it doesn't even hurt, because you've already had time to grieve and process your emotions in advance.
That's kinda how I feel about the earth these days. I feel like the earth is on hospice care, and at that point that we're just making it as comfortable as we can for it to die.
Maybe that's a little melodramatic. But it really does just feel hopeless these days.
Yeah I feel like this is just like when the body gets a fever to get rid of a sickness. The earth is just getting a little fever to get rid of our dumbasses real quick. Then it will go right back to normal and be completely fine.
If it's any consolation. Earth, as in the spinning ball of dirt, will be just fine for many more millions of years. Humans, and other animal species, on the other hand are not going to be fine if the trend continuous.
Dunno, I find it kind of consoling in a meloncolic kind of way.
I feel you. I don't think it's hopeless, but I do think we're in for a rough ride. That being said, I actually have a lot of faith in the upcoming generation. I think that if they get angry enough, they have the potential to arrest what's happening and even turn it around given how well they work together. Greta gets a lot of hate, but hell, I haven't seen someone make as successful a series of environmental stands since Julia Butterfly. If her generation keeps showing that fire, I think there's still hope for humans to live in harmony with the earth.
As much as I also have hope in the next generation, there isn’t a damn thing we can do anymore. If every single human being disappeared right now, the earth would continue warming and experiencing climate change for 100s more years, because of the feedback loops we have set in motion and the fact that the ocean is still dampening some effects, but won’t be able to for long. Our only hope to avert complete disaster, collapse of society and maybe even the extinction of humanity is if we find a way to start pulling massive amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere ASAP. Carbon neutrality isn’t enough, we need to be carbon negative. If zoomers can get that done, in time, then they’re a whole other fucking class of human. I hope they do, but I think the odds are against them and all of us.
Prolonged bouts of high temperatures in China have challenged power grids and crops, and concerns are mounting of a possible repeat of last year’s drought, the most severe in 60 years.
China is no stranger to dramatic swings in temperatures across the seasons but the swings are getting wider.
On Jan. 22, temperatures in Mohe, a city in northeastern Heilongjiang province, plunged to minus 53C, according to the local weather bureau, smashing China’s previous all-time low of minus 52.3C set in 1969.
Since then, the heaviest rains in a decade have hit central China, ravaging wheat fields in an area known as the country’s granary.
These few sentences really capture the horror of “climate change”, that so many people overlook. Yes “average global temp” might increase by 1 degree celsius, but the really immediately terrifying part is changes to large weather patterns that provide a foundation to gargantuan food production industries.
I live in Western Australia. It’s a large state perhaps 3 times the size of texas, but it’s very arid and mostly desert aside from the south west corner in which there’s a “belt” of land with appropriate conditions for cropping in which 18 million tonnes of grain is grown each year, of which 90% is exported. Suppose this year the state receives 30% less rain, then next year 30% more. Suppose that halves production this year, and washes away some of the dry top soil next year. Hell, we might even receive more rain but just a few hundred kilometers from where it usually is.
Point is, even a mild interruption to established weather patterns is going to have a huge and detrimental impact on human agriculture. It’s terrifying really.
For those wondering, one degree celsius increase means every kilogram of air has at least increased by 1°C. The specific heat of air is about 1158 J/(kg*C). Now that might not seem like a lot of energy, in fact 4g (one teaspoon) of sugar has 68,000 J of chemical energy.
The thing is, you might have noticed, there's a lot of air around us. About 5.14 x 10^(18) kg of air. So when you take a pretty normal number and multiply it by an insanely huge number, you get an insanely huge number. That's about 5 exajoules of energy. That is the total energy consumption of the US in 2021 for four million years. Or in sugar terms, equal to the energy of sugar if you converted a little over half of the Earth's entire mass into sugar.
We hit that additional amount of energy in our atmosphere in 2017.
But as an Australian myself i believe the government will ensure we’re all fed and not leave us to starve. Especially not in the Northern Territory where we can’t grow fuck all. /s (do we do that here)
There’s like 100 people with the power to make the change and they’ve all decided to invest the money and power in self preservation. It’s the biggest ‘fuck you proletariat scum’ I could imagine. theguardian.com/…/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apoc…
As if the voters are any better. They could vote for policy makers that bring change, or go into politics themselves. But they don't actually want to be affected by such policy changes. It's always the others, always just finger pointing.
Only about 35 percent of the eligible voters participated, so yeah. Apathy and complacent comfort is a big player in the game. I’m pretty convinced that a lot of people’s apathy comes from the lack of political agency. When business interests conflict with human interests guess who wins every time.
Ok. Well, not all countries are democracies. So, excluded those ones right off the bat. And then narrow it to voters who participate and those who do not.
Participating in what exactly? What the hell are you on about with this US brabbling? You simply don't make any sense and don't seem to have a point. That's what I'm confused about. I didn't mention America, I said voters. Of course that includes the US and excludes non democratic countries, as they do not have voters. So what are you exactly trying to say here?
The largest emitter of greenhouse gasses, and CO2 is China, which not a democratic county. The second largest is United States. Idk how to discuss the possibility of ‘voting’ the climate change problem away without mentioning these two nations.
For sure. But it’s not just Americans. They might be the biggest offenders but the problem of over consumerism has plagued the entire world. At this point our economy is global. The tentacles of capitalism have invaded every corner of the planet.
Our problems today were manufactured well over a hundred years ago. It’s only taken this long for it all to finally catch up.
I felt an existential crisis about this a few years ago. I wanted everyone to simply stop everything, appreciate what they had. I sat down and spent an entire year as simply as possible. Eating simply, consuming very little. The truth is, it’s difficult to do and in our society it is not rewarded. I felt like it was a period of self improvement, but the ultimate truth is, I could not control anyone else, even if I was the living personification of self sustaining anti consumerism. Now I teach early elementary. Participating in this very small way feels like a vast improvement to hiding out like a hermit.
I can’t control anyone, especially wealthy adults. But I can influence the future adults.
The largest total emitter of greenhouse gasses is the US. Followed by the EU and a bunch of other democratic countries. You are doing exactly what I said. Finger pointing rather than taking action. The US does not do enough by themselves, so how about you try stop the stupid agenda pushing and bad faith arguing, interjecting your idiotic talking points that do nothing but derail the actual topic of discussion. Because this issue does not give a flying fuck about borders.
Not that this changes anything. It’s just another idiotic talking point as you so politely pointed out. But then again, I never asserted the idiotic notion that we could simply vote the problem away either.
You did.
Then you politely pointed out that it was stupid to talk about America.
Then you made sure to call me an idiot, because America is the largest emitter of greenhouse gasses.
Care to elaborate on any of this in a productive manner?
I didn't. You're the one who interjected and derailed the topic away. I talked about voters, and you come in with America, then brabbled on and blamed China for your own responsibilities. This is typical climate denier deflections. We have the same in Germany, except they say "Germany only is responsible for less than 2% of all global emissions, we can't change anything." - followed by the same finger pointing to less developed nations that apparently aren't allowed to reach our own living standards. It's nothing but a tired topic and completely pointless. Yeah, China bad. But is the West on that topic. So saying "but China" when asked to do your own part is not going to be solving this issue, nor is it proving any sort of healthy debatte. You can also not expect developing nations to stop developing, while we continue to live in luxury. That's the exact problem I'm talking about. Voters, like you, don't care. They don't want to change anything because it would affect them personally. They rather want other countries, or future generations having to deal with it. And if they're old enough, they also don't want to be seen as the people responsible for actually getting us into this mess. They want to be seen as the generation that brought the younger people comfort and a good live. They want to live in denial and enjoy their remaining time while the world starts to burn.
So. While you blame China, maybe ask yourself how much you helped China by buying Chinese products. What car do you drive and how much? Do you really need to do all your trips with it? Do you really need a 6x6 apocalypse madmax truck that rolls coal by default? Do you really need to vote for people who advocate for non action or even reverse courses, because China? Do you need to live in a big ass sprawling suburb that the cities have to foot the bill for? Everyone loves to shit on China, or big oil, or other big corporations, while doing all they can to support those countries and companies with their own habits. So for the love of everything, stop pointing fingers and derail topics because you don't want to be seen as being part of the responsibility. This requires a global effort, by everyone, and you're not helping.
How shall I help again exactly? Voting? I didn’t blame China, I simply pointed out that your solution, ‘voting’ doesn’t work in a place that doesn’t have participatory democracy. China is to blame just like America is. The wealthy, powerful Chinese and Americans, who actually could do something besides idiotically arguing, decide to continue fucking the world, our children’s futures, and everything else that gets in the way of their maintaining that power. Mostly the people with power over the problem actively ignore or disregard the problem. I do vote. I pick up trash. I avoid buying new stuff, beyond that, since I’m not the CEO of Exon Mobil, I really don’t have agency.
Is your reading comprehension broken are you playing stupid? I never claimed to have a solution. In fact, I pointed out a problem more than anything: Voters. And here you are, derailing towards things that aren't voters, because fuck responsibility. That's why I don't understand what you're trying to get at here. It's like you talk about a completely different topic.
And it's cool that you do all that, but feel free to actually look at other peoples actions, the actions of the huge majority of people. See what the polls around the worlds democracies say. Do you see a huge win for green parties? Do you see people willing to eat less meat? Do you see people swapping from their car to alternatives? No. The contrary. People actually even vote more and more for far right nationalists. The US voted for Trump and there are many places in Europe that are either fully or partially under far right rulership now. And this is something that will get worse with more climate related issues arising, including mass migration from the countries around the equator, that become unlivable hell holes, but also because of food and water shortages. Also, look how many people blame actual climate activists, because they get affected by them in stupidly minor ways, to the point where they want to hurt them.
They could vote for policy makers that bring change, or go into politics themselves. But they don’t actually want to be affected by such policy changes. It’s always the others, always just finger pointing.
This implied that if we voted green, if I went into politics on a environmental platform, if I inconvenienced myself, it could change things. This does, indeed, suggest some sort of solution. I politely disagreed for a variety of reasons, you rudely misunderstood. Did I blame China? No I pointed out that voting green wouldn’t change China. Did I say America is awesome. No I said America is a major part of the problem.
You say everyone is out there finger pointing, but you are unclear, and blaming me for not understanding what you are trying to say perfectly. Point the finger up your tight butt instead of at me.
China is currently one of the leaders in building out renewables. And yes, if the entire democratic world would vote green, it would be a solution. I don't know if you've noticed, but our policies actually change the world, they do it right nor for the negative, and they also have the power to do the opposite. And in the end, there's a lot of tools to hold countries that don't adhere to climate friendly policies accountable. But that first and foremost requires us to actually do the first step of fixing up the mess that we caused. So please stop the climate denial bullshit.
Please point to the place where I denied climate change.
You’ve pointed your finger at me the entire time we’ve talked, while failing to own your own words. You can’t move the goal posts and expect anyone to give a shit about your opinions. You are saying voting can’t change anything, while saying voting is the way to change the problem. Pick one please.
Alright, this is getting too dense for me and I'm not interested in orbiting a black hole. Work on your reading comprehension if you want to communicate with people on the internet. I'm out.
Voters not wanting to lower their living standards is the real elephant in the room. You tell someone that they should eat 1 less hamburger a week and all of a sudden you’re dodging bullets.
I think the worst part of it is that its not actually hopeless, at least not in theory. It’s just that we, or more accurately the people with actual power, refuse to act because it would mean slightly less profit.
Me too, specially when I was younger I thought we could change the world for good if united. I saw cristal clear that the rich wanted to be richer at the expense of the poorer, but as I grew older and saw the reality and stupidity of the world (Like Trump, a massively rich guy being massively voted by the poorest and less educated people) I lost hope. I came to realize that education and stoicism and the best tools the human race has to progress to a healthy society. So that’s what I try to share now when I can.
yeah, it’s true that some humans are really bad, but they’re nothing without (poorly educated) followers, and their followers are the one that give those humans the power to do evil things. Critical thinking is something that should be taught more often to avoid history from repeating.
Though I mostly agree with you, sometimes I feel human nature is just ugly.
This is not true. Humans are created by the material conditions they find themselves in. “Human nature” when in an abundant environment is very different, we can see this among remaining hunter gatherer tribes like the Hadza (watch/read the whole thread).
Living in capitalism is what makes people the way you see them. Competition for resources with your fellow workers and an endless toil for the benefit of someone else enforced by the threat of homelessness and death if you don’t take part.
Being an asshole under capitalism is as natural as coughing is in a smoke filled burning building. If you don’t know anything different you can’t see that to constantly cough is not the natural way of human beings. When you take people and put them in different material conditions you get a completely different outcome.
You make a statement about complexity but you’re not actually saying anything. This is all wishy washy.
There is no middle between “the workers hold power” and “the bourgeoisie should hold power”. There is no middle between “private property should exist” and “private property should not exist”. There is no middle between “profit should be the driving force of development” and “the human development index should be the driving force of development”.
Your wishy washy “we need a middle” is nonsense if you can not put into words what that fundamentally means in terms of actual functioning policy and societal design. Who holds power is THE essential question here. Capitalist society functions as a dictatorship-of-the-bourgeoisie. Socialists want the opposite, a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat. Flipping the power on its head and putting the workers in charge of the outcomes instead of the bourgeoisie.
If you can not fundamentally describe in absolute terminology what you think society needs to do in order to change the current situation then all you are doing in your opposition to people who do want change is supporting keeping it the way it currently is. That puts you on the side of the climate death cult driving us towards the inevitable end.
Oh yes I’m the one who simplified a complex problem… literally said it’s more complex then that. That’s it, is it simple enough for you to understand now?mm
Dude: “tErhe aRE nO MIdDLe tHeRM”
Is the most simplistic shit ever, just quoting slogans and not actually recognizing the complexity of everything.
Are you actually going to talk concrete policy or not? This feels very evasive.
Nothing I said above deserves a “very smart” label, it’s all very basic 101 socialism stuff that you would get reading 1 or 2 books on socialism or marx. I don’t really know why you feel the need to act this way.
So wait, you said shit nothing concrete (am I wrong?)
I said wow good job trying to reduce individual problems by generalising…it’s not politics dude. You can’t use generalization with people, with societies,etc … doesn’t matter …
While you keep making general statments about a huge problem with hundreds of different issues, particular issues that can be approached differently no matter where you are.
Doesn’t matter is the difference is geographic, cultural, whatever … It’s not the same solucion for everything and everyone. Because each case deserves it’s own special individual solucion?
Hey maybe you can generalize and it works,tell me how and we can talk. But don’t say I didn’t give any details when I’m only calling you out for that exactly. What kinda of one-sided argument is that?
At no point did I generalise. Capitalist society is a bourgeoise dictatorship. In socialist terms we don’t mean an individual rules, what we mean is that it is a class dictatorship. The ruling class is the bourgeoisie. They hold all the power, by design, so that they can implement the policies that benefit their class rule. The bourgeoise-democracy provides the outcomes that the bourgeoisie want, because it was built that way from the ground up when they took power during the various revolutions that ended feudalism and brought about the beginnings of capitalism.
What socialists seek is revolutions led by the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie, installing a dictatorship of the proletariat and thus socialist society. This new proletarian led society will then provide the outcomes that are most beneficial to the proletariat instead.
These are all specific and absolute things. There is no generalisation here, I am being extremely specific, you just aren’t familiar with the terms or what they mean. If you have questions I am very willing to answer. If you need more specificity about what these classes are I recommend: reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/class. I wrote the first iteration of that page when I was a mod there. If you need more answers about what the institutional structure of socialism looks like I am happy to answer, you aren’t asking any questions though and you aren’t pointing out what you claim I am generalising on.
This new proletarian led society will then provide the outcomes that are most beneficial to the proletariat instead.
This is not very specific.
What does this look like? Is it 100% communist, 100% socialism or…. what? Maybe some sort of regulated market with very high tax rates like during the “golden age” of capitalism (post world war 2).
Personally, I think I’d enjoy a capitalist society with high tax rates and a strong safety net. Some sort of middle ground.
The immediate new society is political socialism as soon as you kick out the bougies and redesign the institutions to ensure proletarian outcomes. I think what you’re asking is what it would economically look like, and that is a question that would differ depending on the national conditions. What I mean by that is that ultimately what is possible is determined by many factors, assuming that much of the world remains capitalist the newly socialist country would need to integrate into the global market in some way. This would likely mean taking over strategic national industries while leaving consumer sectors to private industry. You’d have a planned economy while maintaining enough for international investors to prevent isolation (like north korea). This would look something like Vietnam, Cuba or China’s combination of private and state industry.
At a later date this would transition to something more and more socialist as and when the national conditions allow for it. Most likely as less and less of the world is capitalist.
Personally, I think I’d enjoy a capitalist society with high tax rates and a strong safety net. Some sort of middle ground.
That’s just a capitalist society ruled by the bourgeoisie, with welfare tacked on. We’re talking about what is necessary here to stop the world from boiling to death, that doesn’t achieve that.
The biggest issue with our environment that drives these problems is that human brains can only reliably grok a few hundred other humans as being people. Beyond that, to a greater or lesser degree, anyone else just feels like an object (which is why we feel upset when people we know die but the statistics of how many people die each day globally don’t have a similar effect.)
Some of us cope better than others but fundamentally any environment that requires humans to be reliant on interacting with over a few hundred other people will lead to people treating each other as objects.
It’s why conservative people often feel it would be inconceivable to mistreat someone they personally know but will casually do profoundly cruel things to people they don’t. If you view their actions towards people outside of their sphere of personhood through the lense of what is and isn’t an appropriate way to treat an object rather than a person they often seem perfectly naturally.
I know the research you’re talking about here but don’t think it should be viewed as something that makes people incapable of empathy to those outside their core group. It makes it harder, but that hasn’t stopped entire nations of people moving hard left towards extreme vocal empathy among one another as the working class. Unity, solidarity and love for one another is demonstrably possible among very large numbers it just requires the right set of prerequisites to achieve, these prerequisites are what socialists should be working towards ticking off in order to set the stage for a wider revolutionary movement.
Nah. Some people have the capacity to have a wider net than others. Some people have the capacity to intellectually overcome the limitations of how we naturally are. Some people put sufficient effort into fulfilling that potential. We all should each do our best to do so.
Doesn’t change that even those of us who are especially good at it are still only good at it for a human. We are all terrible at it and it is fundamentally cruel to try to force everyone to live in a society that requires a level of empathic ability that is profoundly beyond what humans are evolved to be able to handle. It’s like expecting everyone on Earth to be able to lift 5 tonnes or outcalculate a supercomputer in their head. It’s a foolish and unreasonable thing to hang the success of society of people’s ability to do.
intellectually overcome the limitations of how we naturally are
The brain is not distinct from the body. This is very close to a Dualist argument which is a hack philosophy that proposes the mind and “spirit” of a person are distinct from the rest of that person. It comes from the belief that our human sentience is special or different.
If the intellect can do it, it is natural. The difference between one person’s capability to do this and another is simply the background and material conditions these two find themselves in. The background being the historic education and upbringing of that person and the conditions being relevant because people (as you point out) will look to protect their own interests and that of their group first before they seek to protect the interests of others. I argue however that with the right education on class, a person becomes able to see the interests of their class as analogous with their own interests as a result of being a member of that class. This then results in them fighting for the interests of others as a result of recognising it is in their own interests as shared members of that class group. This is basically what we socialists call “class consciousness” compared to “false consciousness”.
You’re making the mistake of thinking the human brain has an infinite capacity to expand its intuitive empathy. It just doesn’t. No more than your bixepf has an infinite capacity to increase it’s strength. You can fulfil that potential more or less but you’ll still never win an arm wrestling match with a gorilla or a robot. Humans have finite limits to their potential. Our current society and most of the proposed alternatives is structured in such a way as to only really work if humans generally have a far higher capacity for intuitive empathy than humans have.
That is fundamentally a flaw that must be overcome by a more thoughtful and purposeful design process than either “well this is just kinda how things ended up really” or “let’s imagine if things were different, but not too different because that’s hard!” (because our brains are also kinda bad at imagining things being seriously different to how they are.) Or if we decide for actual specific reasons that it isn’t viable to even attempt to approach a human society that is shaped to humans rather than one which humans have to clumsily try to shape themselves to, we have to find ways to overcome the limitations of our biology. Often we do a good job of that externally, but for this it might only be possible through trans-humanist approaches. Which to be seems like it should be something we consider because we must, not because we think it is somehow more convenient than thinking purposefully about how we should share our lives together (though for the purposes of that, we may also be currently limited by how well our languages allow for those discussions to meaningfully occur. That’s a fairly solvable issue as we are constantly evolving new ways for our languages to help us express ideas they previously didn’t easily cover.)
As for the difference between the mind and the brain I’m not convinced by your argument at all. The mind is an emergent property of the brain but that does not make them one and the same any more than it makes Windows 98 an x86 PC.
I’m going to gently remind you that Drumpf’s base is actually on avg. wealthier than the opposition’s base. That’s why you get those obnoxious trucks, flags and infinite merchandise (courtesy of Chinese workers).
No need to smear the common people, it’s simply a fact that democracy is not a real tool for change.
Nono look at the 10 poorest states in America(with worse living conditions). They all voted majority Trump, some of the porest counties in the USA are literally voting 80% for trump
If you listen to Obama on that podcast recently (whom those people probably voted for too), paraphrasing: he says economic anxiety makes people prone to risk taking, emotional voting and feel racial resentment.
Yes but that’s only true due to a suite of nefarious influences having to do with things like voter suppression, gerrymandering, dark money and manufactured voter apathy.
There are various versions of democracy. Some are far more effective at implementing the will of their constituents than others.
In my opinion the problem isn’t democracy itself, but rather, has to do with the many various ways in which it’s implemented.
The US version of democracy, for example, is very old, clunky and buggy as fuck because it was created by 18th century white men, some of whom were slave owners, and all of whom were terrified of the possibility that in creating a new (to them) form of governance they might accidentally create a new mechanism for tyranny.
Accordingly, they deliberately created a system that by design would be almost impossible to change short of massive civil unrest and that to this day is very unresponsive to real public sentiment.
The key is that they designed it that way not because they wanted an efficient democracy, but rather, because they wanted to protect themselves and their rights against the rise of a possible tyrant.
What they created was very stable, but again, it wasn’t responsive, nor was it meant to be responsive, to public opinion.
Since then, political scientists have figured out much better ways to run democracies.
One of my favorites is the Irish Republic which, in the 1920s, instituted a suite of reforms to the US model in creating its government with the result that Ireland has gone from being the last third-world country in western Europe, to now being a thriving and economically developed western European nation with a highly-educated English-speaking population that isn’t obliged to take orders from any of the world’s great powers.
Ireland did this by having a high-functioning modern-style democracy.
Median income is BS though. If me and Elon musk make up the test then it would show we have a median income of billions. …I don’t have anywhere close to billions. So a bunch of poor people vote trump and ten billionaires vote trump so trump voters are better off on a average? That’s a joke
They used exit polls, so I doubt the data includes that. It’s likely that anomalies are cut out too if the data is processed this way - they also compare the median to the state median to make the comparison more meaningful, which is how we ‘know’ that his base is wealthier.
I am fully convinced that won’t materialize until a major Western city or province/state/territory/[insert administrative unit here] gets catastrophically and irreparably fucked up.
Neoliberals won’t (nor will the reactionaries they’ve carefully trained) and unfortunatly we’ve let them infest all major political parties and media outlets across most of the globe.
With these managed democracies, they’re able to delay actual progress until the mining and oil execs are satisified with their obscene wealth (which is never going to happen).
Until these people are pried from their positions of power, everybody “coming together” is meaningless.
The solution is going to require immediate, strict, drastic regulations and billions of dollars of research and investment that will never turn into profits, with much of it financed through taxing the rich appropriately.
Neoliberals hate every one of those ideas and have positioned themselves so they can veto all of them.
Voting genuine progressives and ensuring they keep their promises is the only way out because the best we’ll ever get out of this neoliberal psuedo-left is “Maybe we can find a way to save the world that’s more profitable than just letting everyone die”.
Nah, imo voting is kinda like giving your little brother an unpluged controler and pretending he is playing video games with you so that he doesnt riot. Of course we are the little brother. It changes nothing and the candidate that wins just makes everyone feel beter abbout themselves for believing they contributed when the candidate does or says something that they agree with or viseversa, the one that won and the people that didnt vote for him, when it does or say something it just makes them feel that this country is diyng cuz i dont agree with that guy, and then will blame the majority of the voters for voting on the guy while the fault is on the sistem itself.
I say burn everything to the ground, their corrupt institutions, goverment and private/bussines, mainly banks amd administrative burecratical government institutions, make sure rich people (mainly oligarchs and corrupt politicians) cannot get influence nor voice on any kind of venture or decicion on the big picture or the world order or whatever you wannna call it and when we get the chance, replace leadership with A.I. Because at the scale the world is headed right now it will probably be the only way to purge corruption from the actions of human kind and keep everything as morally correct as posible, and im talking morally as in everyone lives as pleasantly as humanlly posible and no mass murders and rehabilitating instead of punishing and susteinability, not that dumb culture wars b.s. that americans are so obssesed with.
Not sure if this will give you hope or not, but one thing to consider is that we could still make it far worse, or put differently, that it’s still in our power to stop that from happening. We can’t change the fact that climate change already has noticeable negative consequences today, nor that global temperatures will rise by at least 1.5° towards the end of the century (compared to 1950-1980), probably more. But we do have a somewhat realistic chance of keeping it at around 2° or below (see e.g. here or here for easy simulations in your browser). The point is that every tenth of a degree counts, and our action or lack thereof now might well make the difference between it “just” getting bad with regular droughts, crop failures, some regions becoming temporarily uninhabitable due to wet bulb temperatures and so on on the one hand, or all of that at a much larger scale leading to societal collapse if we don’t act at all. We live in the worst extinction event the earth has seen since the asteroid that killed the non-bird dinosaurs, but we can still keep it at that instead of turning it into the worst extinction event the earth has ever seen. Luckily, governments (and industry) largely have at least accepted that climate change is a thing, and in Europe and the Americas green-house gas emission have actually already been sinking for the last 15 years or so. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not great, and these governments still should do much more, but it could also be worse, and the fact that we’re lowering emissions despite our politicians generally being very friendly with industry could give at least a sliver of hope. The emissions of China and India (and the rest of Asia) are still rising, but show signs of decelerated growth at least, and in Africa emissions are still fairly low and rising rather slowly, with a chance that some less developed countries might more or less just skip a big chunk of carbon-based industrialisation in favour of renewables. Altogether this means that we’re already on a way to avoid the worst possible scenarios, and still have the power to keep it towards the lower end of the scale as far as terrible outcomes are concerned.
In addition, while individuals have always less power than whole governments or industries, there are nevertheless things anyone reading this could do, e.g.:
Voting for parties that favour stronger climate action, and perhaps even more importantly, not supporting those who do less or even nothing. You can also protest or try to influence your government in some other ways.
Reduce your personal impact by not consuming animal products (in particular meat and dairy), not flying if you can avoid it, not buying stuff you don’t really need, and not having (more) kids.
Tell other people you know who might listen to do those things. Many people favour climate action in principle, but are too lazy, scared or just otherwise preoccupied to actually start doing stuff on their own. You kicking them in the butt or leading by example can motivate them and in turn other people they might now.
If you’re reading this and whether or not you’re already doing some of those things, I’m sure you can find at least some things you could do (I know I can, and I’m trying to put it into practice), which might in turn also make you feel less depressed about the situation. As mentioned before, I’m not saying that we’re in a great situation, but whining about it helps nobody, and we’re still in a situation where we have the power to stop things from getting even worse.
You’d think that staring the future of climate disaster directly in the face would cause at least a few people in charge to, I don’t know, make a few changes. But nothing. Corporate profits are more important than anything else even if the world burns. It does feel hopeless because, to be honest, it is.
Not sure if this will give you hope or not, but one thing to consider is that we could still make it far worse, or put differently, that it’s still in our power to stop that from happening. We can’t change the fact that climate change already has noticeable negative consequences today, nor that global temperatures will rise by at least 1.5° towards the end of the century (compared to 1950-1980), probably more. But we do have a somewhat realistic chance of keeping it at around 2° or below (see e.g. here or here for easy simulations in your browser). The point is that every tenth of a degree counts, and our action or lack thereof now might well make the difference between it “just” getting bad with regular droughts, crop failures, some regions becoming temporarily uninhabitable due to wet bulb temperatures and so on on the one hand, or all of that on a much larger scale leading to societal collapse if we don’t act at all. We live in the worst extinction event the earth has seen since the asteroid that killed the non-bird dinosaurs, but we can still keep it at that instead of turning it into the worst extinction event the earth has ever seen. Luckily, governments (and industry) largely have at least accepted that climate change is a thing, and in Europe and the Americas green-house gas emission have actually already been sinking for the last 15 years or so. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not great, and these governments still should do much more, but it could also be worse, and the fact that we’re lowering emissions despite our politicians generally being very friendly with industry could give at least a sliver of hope. The emissions of China and India (and the rest of Asia) are still rising, but show signs of decelerated growth at least, and in Africa emissions are still fairly low and rising rather slowly, with a chance that some less developed countries might more or less just skip a big chunk of carbon-based industrialisation in favour of renewables. Altogether this means that we’re already on a way to avoid the worst possible scenarios, and still have the power to keep it towards the lower end of the scale as far as terrible outcomes are concerned.
In addition, while individuals have always less power than whole governments or industries, there are nevertheless things anyone reading this could do, e.g.:
Voting for parties that favour stronger climate action, and perhaps even more importantly, not supporting those who do less or even nothing. You can also protest or try to influence your government in some other ways.
Reduce your personal impact by not consuming animal products (in particular meat and dairy), not flying if you can avoid it, not buying stuff you don’t really need, and not having (more) kids. Edit: Also try to favour public transport over driving your own car, and if you need a car, try to use a small, electrical one to reduce emissions.
Tell other people you know who might listen to do those things. Many people favour climate action in principle, but are too lazy, scared or just otherwise preoccupied to actually start doing stuff on their own. You kicking them in the butt or leading by example can motivate them and in turn other people they might now.
If you’re reading this and whether or not you’re already doing some of those things, I’m sure you can find at least some things you could do (I know I can, and I’m trying to put it into practice), which might in turn also make you feel less depressed about the situation. As mentioned before, I’m not saying that we’re in a great situation, but whining about it helps nobody, and we’re still in a situation where we have the power to stop things from getting even worse.
Yes, my list is by no means complete. I’m sure there are many more things any of us could do, it’s more meant as a list of some examples to give people starting points for practical things to do.
I know this won’t change your mind or anything, but this is probably pretty close to the mindset of some other ~1.5 billion first world countries’ populations’ mindset. And those combined account to currently around ~37% of CO2 emissions. So if all people like you (if you consider first world countries’ people to be people like you) all came together and did more we could have some pretty huge impact. Of course the other ~63% may still fuck things up, but this is a much different comparison than just you against the rest of the world, you’re not very unique in that regard.
I’m so tired of people turning everything into an awful prisoner’s dilemma. Everyone should just aim to be the best person you can be and stop fretting about whether everyone else is trying quite as hard as you. It doesn’t need to be complicated.
Right? On a global scale, though, “best person you can be” should be something like, “let’s try to behave in such a way so that if everyone behaved like me, the world would be a good place”. That is hard though, to think like that.
What can help is the knowledge that by doing so it is impossible not to on some level inspire others to do the same to some degree by example.
If you’re a selfish jerk that will cause people around you to be .001% (or something) more selfish and jerky. If you are kind and good that will push the needle the other way similarly.
Except the amount more those people are better or worse for knowing you then also influences how much better or worse the people they know are etc and so while it is a small effect per person, the diffused effect is meaningful, cumulative and self-reinforcing. It doesn’t take a lot of people within a community either giving up and being the worst or finding enough of a spine to try to be good to start to tip the balance of the whole community in either direction. It also means that as you are better and kinder, your immediate external world gradually becomes a little better and kinder which makes it easier and more rewarding to be that way in an endless virtuous cycle.
Ok now apply the fact that at least 45% of the western world is brainwashed by the fossil fuel industry. They’re low IQ repeater bots who would glady kill every single one of us because climate change is a “hoax”.
I think a very small minority “would gladly kill every single one of us”, not 45%. If it were 45%, there’d already be open civil war all over the west.
Thank you this was actually really nice to read. I feel like everywhere I look is more bad news about the climate it’s nice to see we can at least still mitigate it
How does someone like this even get near a mainstream party in the US? The closest I can think of in the UK was Andrew Bridgen but he was kicked out the Tories for spreading vaccine disinformation. Then anyone else with those views, like Piers Corbyn and Lawrence Fox were stuck in minor fringe groups to begin with.
This guy is just saying out loud what large parts of the population are thinking.
I’m not Jewish, but antisemitism was pretty normalized in the south, but to be fair, they’re pretty intolerant of anyone who isn’t from their specific version of protestantism.
Can’t the Democrats do the equivilent of “taking the whip” like what happened to Andrew Bridgen in the UK? Distance themselves from him and not let him run for them?
They will. When primaries come, the Democratic party will soundly and democratically (little d) reject his attempt to represent them by not voting for him. Even before then, he will be rejected because nobody is going to give him the time of day when it comes to setting up a debate or using party resources to facilitate his campaign. Until then, he is not a representative of the party, just a dude who says he wants to represent the party. I could just as easily say I want to represent the Republican party by running a campaign on aborting every single fetus in the United States and then holding a giant gay orgy before forcing all cisgender people to undergo surgical transition. Obviously I would not be representative of the Republican party. Same with this guy and the Democratic party. The only reason it feels like this guy is in any way legitimate or affiliated with the Democratic party is because of how early primary/election coverage starts.
People familiar with the matter told the outlet that Bannon hoped Kennedy could serve as a “useful chaos agent” in the election while also spreading “anti-vaccine sentiment around the country,” according to CBS News’ Robert Costa.
That’s the evidence?? Unnamed sources telling a reporter this? come on man.
How does someone like this even get near a mainstream party in the US?
All it takes to be a Democrat is to check a box when you register to vote (same for any other party in the US). There is nothing stopping anyone who wants to from running for the Democratic nomination. Needless to say, he isn’t endorsed by the Democratic Party and doesn’t have any real popular support. As for why he wants to be known as a Democrat–I’m not an expert on the guy but I do know that he is one of the children of the Kennedy dynasty from the '60s; the Democratic Party is part of his brand, I suppose. He is not a serious candidate, he is almost certainly running specifically to raise his profile and increase the number of followers he has as a professional conspiracy grifter (which has been his occupation for decades now).
How does someone like this even get near a mainstream party in the US?
Because despite the media disliking him, he’s reasonable if you watch his interviews and his interactions instead of reading headlines and determining your opinion of him by one bias sentence.
Yes, how ‘reasonable’ of him to suggest COVID-19 was a bioweapon designed to spare Jews and Chinese people. That’s the very definition of a reasonable position that is not in any way bigoted and fucking nuts.
He was talking about COVID in the context of bioweapons that could target ethnic groups. I saw the whole video. You’re not going to be able to gaslight me by attempting to take just the COVID part out of context.
Kennedy later posted a video statement on Sunday, saying in part: “Nobody has suggested that these were deliberately engineered changes and I certainly don’t believe that they were deliberately engineered,” but calling it “kind of a proof of concept that you can develop bioweapons that will attack certain ethnicities.”
Gaslighting by telling me I didn’t see and hear what I saw and heard. You keep talking about the article as if there wasn’t video. I think it’s pretty clear you haven’t actually watched the video.
"We fail to understand the consideration of non-EU candidates for such a high-ranking and strategic position, ... We are very concerned about the opposite views she publicly expressed and the potential conflict of interests between her new role and her previous functions with large American tech companies."
"No matter how competent, this is not in our strategic interest,"
"Don't we have excellent economists in the EU?"
Maybe by using violent imagery to describe polite questions and expressions of opinion, we devalue the seriousness of war and cast people asking genuine questions as destructive.
Why does English even have an idiom that equates shooting people with criticism? Do other languages do this?
Sorry for somewhat off topic post, I have no stake in or opinion on her job offer. I just got the shits with figuratively inflammatory language as a mechanism of engaging users in media and then realised it goes culturally even deeper.
They’re going into a serious recession, between real estate and interest rates elsewhere slowing investment and spending there’s no major growth engine anymore, their consumer spending is collapsing in anticipation of a severe downturn.
It is truly wild how far cops will go to continue being shitty and not bettering themselves. Not surprising or shocking at this point, but just fucking wild.
Yes, our cops have a heavy bias against black people. It’s pretty obvious if you swap traffic so stories with black people and non black people. Most of those biases result in more traffic fines, and other citations that are technically against the law, but they usually ignore it if you’re not black. Total bullshit, and needs to be addressed.
Them trying to cover it up is a very unsurprising things for our cops to do, with their stupid ass “it’s not our fault black people commit more crimes” metality. But considering how I’ve seen and read about the straight up harassment, abuse, and fatal incidents stared by cops in other states, it could be worse. CT cops are… Well I won’t say good… I’d say they’re like Walmart floor stockers. They spend more time making it seem like they’re doing their job that actually doing it, trying to take as much free shit as they can get away with, and if you ever ask them for help they’re too busy.
If they take this finding, fire the offenders, and use it to tighten up on their obvious racial bias, we might have a semi-passable police force.
I would be amazed if they weren’t hit harder, many orthodox jews live in dense communities and there is a genetic disposition to immunodeficiency disorders.
While driving down to OC earlier today, my wife commented how dry things looked along the mountains, saying how it might be a bad wildfire season.
I said it’ll probably be even worse in a few months but I guess I was off by a little (although I bet it’ll be hell in October/November when things get real dry).
Yeah, it's definitely going to be bad this year. The big rainstorms we got this winter caused a lot of growth, and anything east of the Bay Area is already dry up here in the north - had a couple of small local blazes already. The one saving grace is that we lucked out on cooler weather and late rain, but it's clear that our luck at climate roulette is beginning to turn.
Not going to lie, I take great guilty pleasure telling friends in other states about how it’s 78 degrees here by the coast. Especially the ones who make fun of California being so hot. But yeah, I’ve got my air filters ready…
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.