There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

delirium ,
@delirium@lemmy.world avatar

This is fine, we just need to switch from plastic bugs and make caps attached to bottles and everything will be alright! Together we can fight at least 1% of the carbon emissions from top 100 corporations in the world :)

BraveSirZaphod ,
@BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social avatar

I really think this narrative is counterproductive. It's not like corporations produce greenhouse gasses because they think it's fun. They're doing it to produce goods that people want at the absolute minimal price possible.

No corporation is going to choose more environmentally friendly practices out of the goodness of their own hearts unless those practices are cheaper. And given that that is very rarely the case, we have to look at things like carbon taxes to actually price in the externalities of climate damage. But that is going to increase the prices of some goods, and that requires a level of political will that has proven very difficult to come by. "Just make corporations pay" to fix things, whether that's a carbon tax or taxes on oil company executive pay or dividends or whatever else the proposal may be is always going to mean "increase prices to compensate for climate-related externalities".

That doesn't necessarily mean that all costs of addressing climate change must directly fall on consumers; government subsidies to reduce the costs of environmentally sustainable practices can also be extremely beneficial. But ultimately, this is a problem that we've all created, and we're all going to have to be part of solving it. Blaming corporations, even if partially accurate, doesn't actually get us any closer to solving things.

Encode1307 ,

You get that nuance out of here, young man/woman! We won’t have that kind of thing round these parts!

kman ,

Can we please leave these canned responses on reddit

Encode1307 ,

Can we leave simplistic, reductionist arguments on reddit?

delirium ,
@delirium@lemmy.world avatar

It’s not like corporations produce greenhouse gasses because they think it’s fun.

I think we can agree on that corporations are aimed at cheapest way to produce most popular goods at the biggest scale they can achieve for, in the end, produce the biggest possible profit. Thats what corporations are made for: money.

In the end, rich guy gets a yacht, bunker for apocalypse and private residence with AC, private kitchen stuff and anything they want so he will be fine even if its 60C outside. If it will get unbearable, they’ll move to something like Norway and will be fine.

At the same time, hundreds of thousands of people who live in hot countries will die and millions will be climate refugees.

All that, because producing iphone with coal electricity (simplification, albeit I feel like its close to truth) is 10$ cheaper.

Blaming corporations, even if partially accurate, doesn’t actually get us any closer to solving things.

Swapping to paper bags will not help either. There are only two options to solve the issue:

  1. Government forces corpo to stop wasting our planet (because we don’t have a spare one)
  2. People get torches

1 is impossible because gov will never cut the feeding hand and 2 is just a matter of time until we will get couple hundred millions migrants from Aftica, India, Pakistan etc.

p03locke ,
@p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

1 is still possible. But, we’re at a tipping point between ending up in some Cyberpunk corporate-ran dystopia and one where the general public actually has the upper-hand and can fend off governmental corruption.

Choose wisely. Vote every year, twice a year.

sangle_of_flame ,
@sangle_of_flame@lemmy.world avatar

but the thing about voting is that basically every politician is either:

  1. In the pocket of one or more corporations
  2. Literally part of a corporation (or outright owns one)
  3. A politician at who doesn’t have as much power as the former two or is in the pocket of one of them

so we could vote for John StopClimateChange, and then find out that every single thing that Mr. StopClimateChange said about his crusade to stopping climate change was not at all true or was so utterly miniscule in the long run as to be meaningless

p03locke ,
@p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

This is a defeatist and authoritarian position that the rich and powerful want you to have. They want to feel like you can’t win, so that they vote behind you while you sit at home. Until eventually, they just dismantle democracy altogether and we go back to fiefdoms.

There is clearly one party that is more in line with the goals of fighting climate change than the other. Vote for that group. Vote for that group twice a year.

PipedLinkBot ,

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): piped.video/watch?v=t0e9guhV35o

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.

DrunkenPirate ,

Yes and No. Yes, it’s not only corporations and we must act ourselves.

No, it’s the rules that set the game. Corporations play within the rules. Politics is owning and can change the rules. The society and corporations will follow accordingly. If we really want to change we can. Look what happened during Covid. In retrospect, some insane rules (eg Germany kids not allowed to enter playgrounds. Kids couldn’t play to save the elderly). However, society obeyed to those rules.

It’s not us, it’s the rules that must change. In my view this should be the priority.

Kanzar ,

At least here in Australia parents were using the kids at the playground to socialise (standing right up in each other’s space, holding empty coffee cups to justify no mask), and so there were multiple vectors of infection. That and multigenerational households are more common in some parts of the world, so if the kid brings it home, whole family gets sick, hospital system overloads.

It wasn’t specifically kids suffer so oldies don’t die, but the continuation is that if the oldies are healthy, if anyone needs the hospital, there’ll be staff to look after them.

TL;DR people are taking the piss and making the jobs of HCWs harder… Not like that’s anything new 🙄

pwalker ,

yeah it was obviously the same on any playground so the above comment saying it was “to safe elderly” is just very short sighted. Additionaly implying that this was the case in whole of Germany is again wrong. Each federal state had it’s own health regulations in place but yeah some of those were kind of mediated by the ministry of health. Anyway it was a lot more complex than what this comment suggests

DrunkenPirate ,

Sure it was more complex. Not going to write a Phd here.

My point is, the society accepts rules even tough rules if it’s for everyone. If it’s fair. So, at Covid times younger people, who are less likely to get serious sickness were accepting being „caged“ for two years (exaggerating a bit. If you are 5 years old. 2 years is half of your life!)

I strongly miss this generational fairness when it comes to climate change. Not seeing any step back in terms of carbon consumption/ consumption at all from the older people.

DrunkenPirate ,

Don’t know about your country. The bigger goal in Europe was to keep hospitals working. Goal was not to Triage people cos hospitals were crowed. That happened in the beginning in Northern Italy. At Triage you look at who has biggest chances of survival, who is worth to invest your effort. Guess if it’s the elderly or the younger.

Just to make it clear. It’s fine for me how it worked out in Germany. China is the blue print how it worked bad. But want to make my argument that all that rules were on the shoulders of the younger generation to safe the elderly.

Right now in Germany, we have an insane political discussion about carbon reduction. It’s about actions. Being active. So, your heaters need to be replaced from oil and gas to renewables. Yes, it will cost some money. Do you think people are following that goal to safe the younger generations? I‘m pretty pissed about my and the older generation. And concerned about the reality for my kids.

sangle_of_flame ,
@sangle_of_flame@lemmy.world avatar

and guess who lobbies a ridiculous amount to either keep the rules the same or bias it further towards their interests

yep, corporations once again

DrunkenPirate ,

Indeed. Go out at the street and show you want change. Politics fear many people on streets fighting for their rights. Look at France, Israel. When was last time you fight for your rights?

mayo ,
@mayo@lemmy.world avatar

However, society obeyed to those rules.

We did but we’re paying for it now with the rise of “-isms” whose values are built on stifling change. 2-3 years of rapid change might have helped redefine an era of politics for the contrary. TBD I guess.

mouth_brood ,

this is a problem that we’ve all created

You mean this is a problem that the boomers and gen x created. THEY are the generations that controlled the corporations whose only concern was profit. THEY are the generations that pushed consumerism with no regard to the natural world. THEY are the generations that elected the politicians that allowed this all to happen. So here come the millennials and zoomers to clean up their mess, just like everything else they fucked up for the rest of us.

Playlist ,

What an awkward speech.

Sure people spending all day on TikTok and playing with cryptocurrencies are actually solving problems created by people who worked in the mines and watched TV.

The truth is, across all generations, everyone is doing anything to live the most confortable life possible according to their convictions, and YouTubers today are not better promoting their shitty gamer drinks or VPN services than a 1980s vendor trying to sell as much diesel engines as possible. It’s even more true when it comes to corporate, or you’ll have to tell me what’s is Zuckerberg doing for the planet that Bill Gates is not.

At any given time there were people willing to change the world, trying to make it more fair. We’re just never enough. And being a millennial I can assure you it’s not changing anytime soon, even tho things are getting shittier and shittier.

Alenalda ,

Playing with cryptocurrency (monopoly money/disney dollars) is an incredibly energy intense process. Extremely wasteful and damaging just to play with some made up money.

dojan ,
@dojan@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah, don’t put the blame on us. In all my 29 years of life climate change has always been a big topic no one has done anything about.

We’re living in this ridiculous gerontocracy where old lizards bought by corporations are making decisions to benefit said corporations for the next couple of months, all the while the coming generations suffer.

At this point it’s too late. It’s time to owe up, apologise for being so greedy that you used up the world, leaving nothing for coming generations.

mouth_brood ,

If you’re 29 that means you’re borderline millennial/gen z. Definitely not blaming you here. You are correct, this has been an issue for our entire lives and the generations before us have done exactly nothing to curtail the destruction of our planet

sangle_of_flame ,
@sangle_of_flame@lemmy.world avatar

although it’s very common for the earlier generation to blame the later generation for the world sucking (or what they percieve as “sucking”), in this case it doesn’t work because not every boomer and gen-x-er is a CEO or past CEO

Thadrax ,

Looking at the voting results for younger generations, this isn’t even close to this simple. Yes, there is a slight shift towards more environmental policies/parties, but it is far from a majority even in the youngest age bracket that is allowed to vote (looking at voting results from the last general election in Germany).

p03locke ,
@p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Blaming the public over corporations is the #1 reason why we are in this mess in the first place. For decades, the narrative has been “it’s your fault and you need to change your habits”. It is a pointless and useless narrative because nobody is going to actively change anything like that until they are forced to. Even when we make moderate, easy efforts to do stuff like recycling, the recycling companies bitch and moan about how they can’t ship this shit off to China to let them do the work, and then throw away most of it, anyway. We PAY recycling companies to recycle this shit and they can’t be bothered to figure out how to recycle it. We PAY THEM to take away materials to use in new products, not the other way around.

In every aspect of people’s lives, you will find that corporations use up 90% of the resources that the general public use because corporations deal in economies-of-scale far bigger than anything a person or even a country can do. Corporations have been pushing the “blame the public” narrative to shift focus away from the decades of abuse they will continue to inflict on the planet. Corporation shit all over everything, and they will continue to do so in the name of profit. That is exactly what they are designed to do.

It takes governmental effort and regulations against the corporations to stop this sort of thing. They do it for clean water, and CFCs, and automotive design, and architecture, and many many other things. Why? Because a minority group of people who are struggling to make a living is never going to have enough power and clout as a large corporation or a government.

AaronMaria ,

They produce like double of what we need, it’s not only what we need and buy, capitalism is extremely inefficient in the usage of resources, which brought us into this mess.

dojan ,
@dojan@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah. Anything that isn’t consumed is destroyed. Case in point, dumpster diving at grocery stores is illegal. Fast fashion companies destroy clothes that don’t sell.

The entire system is fucked.

SpaceCowboy ,
@SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca avatar

Yes! If we’re expecting corporations to grow a conscience and “Do the right thing^TM^” then we’re doomed.

Though I do think the corporations are somewhat responsible for the narrative that everyone is powerless except for them. People pushing the “but the corporations!” while being unwilling to make any changes themselves are actually just carrying water for them. Promoting malaise and doomerism is just letting them have their way.

At any rate trying to appeal to the corporations to do the right thing is a complete waste of time. We need to make more effort ourselves. Which means making an effort to reduce our own carbon emissions as individuals. While also participating in the political process to create regulations that force the corporations to do the right thing. Because they sure as hell won’t do it on their own no matter how much people whine about it on the internet.

jocanib ,

I really think this narrative is counterproductive. It’s not like corporations produce greenhouse gasses because they think it’s fun. They’re doing it to produce goods that people want at the absolute minimal price possible.

No corporation is going to choose more environmentally friendly practices out of the goodness of their own hearts unless those practices are cheaper.

I didn’t get past you contradicting yourself in the first three sentences. Sorry.

mayo ,
@mayo@lemmy.world avatar

I think as someone who did “the things”, and that’s how I live now, it’s hard to look around and see basically no perceptible difference. The incentive is slim for the individual. Everyone going ‘sustainable’ is a pipe dream. The bulk of the population is never going to make those changes.

TechnoBabble ,

That’s why change needs to come from the corporate level through regulation.

People generally just want food, shelter, health, and comfort. And most people in the world are struggling to maintain food and shelter.

Their evironmental footprint doesn’t even register as an afterthought.

mayo ,
@mayo@lemmy.world avatar

That’s what I was going to suggest but then I always feel this is a complicated problem and it’s not just one thing. It’s a lot of efforts on in different areas, but regulation is certainly one. It shouldn’t be that hard to do considering it’s one of the main responsibilities of government.

Holyhandgrenade ,
@Holyhandgrenade@lemmy.world avatar

Have you seen how much CEOs get paid?
Corporations can switch to greener alternatives AND pay workers a living wage AND make a profit, without having the consumers pay the price.
All it takes is the willingness of politicians to force them to. Corporations raise prices because they’re allowed to, and they’ll take any excuse they can get to get more money out of people.
Gas prices have skyrocketed. First it was covid’s fault. Then it was the war in Ukraine. All the while gas corporations have been seeing record-breaking profits. It’s all just greed.

Resonosity ,

They’re doing it to produce goods that people want at the absolute minimal price possible.

And there are portions of people in our society that will pay for those minimal prices either because they can’t afford anything else, or strictly because it’s convenient for them to spend that little so that they have more money left over to do more stuff in their life elsewhere.

But there are also people that are willing to sacrifice and make changes to their lifestyles and spending practices to accommodate the impacts of their actions.

The same is true with corporations. Some large corpos in the world are actively trying to move towards sustainable, circular economies. I’m doing a lot of research right now into the textile industry, and two of the biggest corporations in that space that I’ve seen are doing decent work on the two fronts I previously mentioned are Lenzing (TENCEL™) and Aquafil (ECONYL®).

Lenzing uses wood of various species from places in Europe, all managed well and FSC/PEFC controlled, to draw out fibers and filaments that are just as fine and useful as polyester fibers/filaments, yet with the added bonus of biodegradability. They also recycle cotton clothing from collection centers in Spain and some larger textile service companies in southern Europe and mix that in with their wood-based feedstock to produce the same rayon fibers.

Aquafil runs on a similar model to Lenzing, except they base theirs on nylon instead of rayon. Aquafil collects ghost nets from around Europe and South America, along with other corporations’ scrap nylon (pre-consumer waste) and post-consumer waste from a number of brands (e.g. sunglasses, jackets, etc.) to regenerate nylon back into the same quality as you would find in virgin materials. Now, I don’t think that plastic is sufficient anymore thanks to the non-degradable waste associated with it, but it’s better than nothing.

Are there flaws with those 2 companies: of course. Their chemical processes might not be 100% closed loop and their claims might be overexaggerated in ways, but it’s better than nothing.

Anyways, what this examples shows is that there are corporations and even people on the ground that are willing to make more sustainable choices because they legitimately see the benefit of doing so compared to convention. Someone else might describe this as a form of an adoption life cycle, where you have those more willing to change and those less willing to change as practices and habits shift over time.

Could government help with that? I believe so. I think that’s just one lever of change though. If you’ve been following solar PV growth over the last decade and a half, then you know about the “contagion” phenomenon: some early adopters pick up solar, only for considerers and even late adopters to do the same as word of mouth and other social drivers influence decision making at a people level.

Could the same happen with other sustainable choices in the economy? I fall more into the early adopter camp, so I would say yes. I think corporations spend a lot of time and marketing convincing their customers that said corporations are the best and only options and that no other alternative exists out there: when there absolutely is or might be. Perhaps all it takes is demonstrating to people, doing, not talking, walking the walk, to change their minds. I think the same tactics could be used, in addition to government intervention.

Bottom-up + top-down is the strategy I’ve heard described by many proponents of sustainability, most notably Al Gore, and I’m all for it too. Luckily humans, at least in some countries around the world, live in free societies and can divide and conquer to work on both of these fronts to affect change.

hardypart ,
@hardypart@feddit.de avatar

These two things have no relation. One is about climate change, the other one about microplastics in the environment and our food chain.

anteaters ,

Apparently there are still loads of people who don’t understand this simple fact and think everything that is done to make the world a better place is for climate change.

Kraiden ,

I mean, they both show a callous disregard for the fragility of life on this planet, and a keen disinterest in anything but short term convenience and comfort? Oh and profit, can't forget about MONEY

anteaters ,

What has that to do with anything? Reducing single use plastics is environmental protection which is not the same as fighting climate change. No one who fights against plastics does so for climate change. Stop spreading such nonsense. Not even your linked article claims something like that.

larlyssa ,

Why would that be orthogonal? Most plastics are created using crude oil and natural gas feedstocks - the creation of these single use plastics directly impacts climate change.

anteaters ,

Energv wise plastics are often super cheap to produce especially compared to their reusable and non plastic alternatives. IIRC the CO2 footprint is drastically lower for items like bags and straws made of plastic.

elouboub ,
@elouboub@kbin.social avatar

This argument keeps coming up as an excuse to do nothing.

  • It's not my fault but theirs!
  • Why should I change when they won't?
  • I'm just one person against all these big corps, why try?
  • Even if I stopped, it wouldn't make a difference.

Pure defeatism neglecting even any bit of responsibility.

Yet people who say this will put another child on the planet, buy yet another product from Apple on release, love fast fashion, buy the cheapest goods possible, toss their meal as soon as they're full, vote egoistically, take the cheapest trip to wherever, drive a car, toss cigarette butts on the ground, and so much more.

It's always easier to blame others. Yes, corporations are shit, but remember, they are made up of people like you and I.

WE work there.
WE buy their crap.
WE vote for the same politicians over and over again (or don't vote at all).
WE put another child on this planet to go through this shit.
WE as humans are the problem.

rikudou ,

See, that’s your point of view. My point of view is that people who are all doom online are the problem.

sangle_of_flame ,
@sangle_of_flame@lemmy.world avatar

WE as humans are the problem.

you can count the owners of the entities that produce the most greenhouse gases within 3 digits; it’s not “everybody”

parlaptie ,

I feel the need to remind people that the concept of the ecological footprint was invented by BP to direct the focus of climate fears away from large corporations and onto individuals.

Nioxic ,

Also if you only eat meat in the weekends then the rich peoples private jets will suddenly have no environmental impact

cantstopthesignal ,

Is there a bracelet I can wear to show my solidarity with the people dying of heat stroke, or perhaps an instagram filter.

vimdiesel ,

we have the 80% solution and it’s nuclear power, but whatever y’all keep wailing and gnashing teeth and denying the obvious. I’m just gonna keep on living I guess and hope my house survives the shitty weather.

Spaniard ,
@Spaniard@lemmy.world avatar

We have what, 10 years to try stop the planet to get over 1,5ºC? 20 over 2ºC?, that’s pretty much the time it takes to build a new nuclear power plant from 0.

We are too late.

billytheid ,

We had that 10 years ago, now it’s too late to prevent a cascade of collapsing systems. It’s already beginning with insect deaths

superkret ,

“No need to change, NUCULAR will save us.”

Metallibus ,

Together we can fight at least 1% of the carbon emissions from top 100 corporations in the world :)

I wish our choices had a 1% impact… That seems extremely generous.

TechnoBabble ,

For example…

Go look at your local Walmart and it’s bazillion products. They expect to sell almost everything in that store multiple times within a month. All that generates enormous waste on a scale that’s literally impossible for the earth to sustain for another 100 years without total ecological collapse.

We’re living in the single most polluting decade in human history, every decade, since all of us were born. Even if the entire Lemmy user base become subsistence farming monks, the factories would just keep churning out poison unphased.

I’m not saying it’s bad for people to try and consume more responsibly. I’m just saying it doesn’t make a difference over any meaningful time period until there’s a radical change in how our global economy functions.

Environmental catastrophe will continue until we literally cannot ignore it, only then will we do anything substantial about it. Unfortunately that’s just how our society works.

tlf ,

I don’t agree with you. Many individuals changing their behavior is what it takes for an economic shift in our society. By thinking that we don’t have an impact we loose motivation to change our behavior. So if you say you are annoyed by big supermarkets filling our planet with waste that’s fine, I agree. But this needs to lead to a change in behavior, first of yourself, then for those who notice you haven’t died from eating mostly vegan products and buying from local farmers markets and then hopefully for most people in our society.

Companies produce as long as people consume their products. If commnsumers switch to sustainable products (quite different from products advertised as sustainable) companies will have to follow

mojo ,

At this point, I’m down for the execution of selfish billionaires who actively push for coal and other harmful climate policies. They not only don’t care about the world, they are actively harming it to make their short time left feel better from seeing a number go up in their bank.

SaltyLemon ,
@SaltyLemon@lemmy.world avatar

If you were on reddit: “You have been permanently suspended for threatening to use violence.”

Sterile_Technique ,
@Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world avatar

I’d always just drop a link. Got the message across, but never got me banned:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine

Clbull ,

I always thought Lemmy (at least this instance) had stricter rules than Reddit. Seeing a comment here that outright wishes for billionaires to be culled is a huge culture shock.

mojo ,

Because we aren’t worried about offending advertisers. This is what real people think without being forced to be advertiser friendly.

billytheid ,

It’s also a VERY popular sentiment the world over

But also Reddit admins are total deadshits, I was permanently banned and then harassed on other platforms for pointing out that Pitbulls are banned in Australia and that we euthanise them, and any other violent animals(just said that was a law here, nothing else). Crazy dog fuckers wouldn’t leave me alone.

jarfil ,

I got banned from Reddit, then when I sent an appeal, got permabanned on the alt account too for “repeated violations”.

Damned if they say you did, damned-er if you say you did not.

At least Lemmy has a modlog for everyone to see (until some instance decides to scrub that… but I wouldn’t like to stay on one of those).

JimmyDean ,

Unfortunately, now the comment just says Removed

jarfil ,

The comment itself is still there, just hidden. You can see it in the modlog, page source, or some apps.

TheMauveAvenger ,

It would do absolutely nothing at all. For every billionaire that is running some seedy enterprise that you don’t like, there are dozens if not hundreds of well paid people that are supporting that enterprise and would keep it going going forever.

mojo ,

Send them all to a for-profit prison I say!

DogMuffins ,

Yeah, the vast majority of human kind would gladly own a multi billion dollar company even if that company were causing climate change.

jarfil ,

I would gladly own one, I would also gladly pivot it towards not causing climate change.

Only problem is owning one in the first place; most are “publicly owned” by a bunch of investors who themselves are investment funds owned by some other bunch of investors like those putting their money in 401k plans.

It’s a nice tangle of cross-ownerships that ends up hurting the actual owners without them having any power to change anything.

billytheid ,

You know what the French nobility did when the people started to, quite rightfully, remove their heads? It sure wasn’t move in to the newly vacant palace…

dudebro ,

It’s not just the billionaires.

It’s the entire first-world culture of consumerism.

hglman ,

Start at the top and keep going down the list until emissions fall far enough.

yuumei ,

In case anyone wants to see what the comment that was censored was: lemm.ee/modlog?page=1&actionType=ModRemoveComment…

Doesn’t seem to break the rules to me. The OP was simply stating what they would do, not advocating it

mojo ,

dang my comment was quadruple removed, no ragrets

johnlobo ,

you are a naughty boy.

weeahnn ,
@weeahnn@lemmy.world avatar

pretty stupid reason to remove the comment.

cupcakezealot ,
@cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Honestly I will never forgive people who STILL continue to deny climate change is happening and refuse to legilslate on it.

eatisaiy ,

kinda late even if they did now 😔

cley_faye ,

No, it’s not. If we started large scale changes now, we would have to endure years of terrible condition with the slight hope that things will improve afterward. Saying “it’s too late” equals to saying we’ll have to endure years of terrible condition while expecting even worse afterward. It’s still a bad posture, no matter how you spin it.

irkli ,
@irkli@lemmy.world avatar

Totally correct. We live now, act now. The future remains not determined, but damn right paths and options are rapidly closing.

Probably something like an inhabitable band will form over continents; the US southwest and south gulf, for instance.

All humans won’t die. That’s silly. But very many can, and the rest, degraded.

billytheid ,

The US will be lucky if much survives, as will Europe; once the Gulf Stream breaks down both regions will freeze

bob_wiley ,
@bob_wiley@lemmy.world avatar

deleted_by_author

    •
    billytheid ,

    You need to see this through the eyes of a psychopath, because those are the ones we’ve put in charge; from their perspective, mass deaths on a global scale mean more resources for them.

    Look at the bunkers they’re building… they’re relishing the notion of genocidal control

    bob_wiley ,
    @bob_wiley@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    billytheid ,

    I don’t think you completely got the gist of my comment.

    dexx4d ,

    Mass death will also slow down global climate change.

    Keep in mind that the “them” that gets more resources includes most of the western world, traditionally.

    lennybird ,
    @lennybird@lemmy.world avatar

    At this point Don’t Look Up is a documentary. I honestly cannot imagine what it’s like to he a climate scientist who actively studies this, only to have some fox news watching crazy uncle parroting cherry-picked data, thinking they somehow know better than global scientific consensus. I imagine some at this point may be going, “fuck it. Let it burn.” And honestly, I can’t blame them.

    CafecitoHippo ,

    The infuriating part is people denying the change is happening. I could at least hear an argument on whether or not you think it is due to human involvement and what we could do to stop it (I’d still think you’re wrong). But to deny the existence of climate change is asinine.

    Blackmist ,

    “We all know what to do, but we don’t know how to get re-elected once we have done it.” - Jean-Claude Juncker.

    Career politicians will never fix anything. They’re only interested in not rocking the boat and keeping themselves in office.

    And the steps we would need to take to fix it would surely not be popular among the masses, even as they sit dying of heatstroke and starvation. People want magic pills that fix problems, and no such thing exists for this.

    Zoldyck ,

    If only somebody warned us 50 or 100 years ago. Oh wait, they did.

    killernova ,

    More like over 200 years ago. There was a french female scientist that discovered the greenhouse effect before John Tyndall but I forgot her name and I’m at work rn, can’t search for it.

    Monsieur ,

    Are you thinking of Joseph Fourier? en.wikipedia.org/…/History_of_climate_change_scie…

    killernova ,

    It was an American named Eunice Foote that detailed the mechanics of the greenhouse effect, but, give or take, it was also around the same time that many scientists came to the same or similar conclusions about this subject. So yes, we’ve been warned for over 200 years and have done exactly nothing to solve the problem. Why? $.

    irdc ,

    Eunice Newton Foote

    killernova ,

    That’s it!

    alcamtar ,
    @alcamtar@lemmy.world avatar

    Yeah they were predicting an ice age. And technically we’re still in an ice age, so the planet has to get warmer to reach it’s natural balance point. But it could also get cooler, because we’re in an interglacial period. If we don’t want continental glaciation maybe we should be thankful that the planet’s warming and not cooling.

    Ultraviolet ,

    That’s a myth perpetuated by oil companies to discredit climate science. There was a single paper about it that was widely rejected as a crackpot theory by the larger scientific community. The consensus then was the same as it is now.

    Enkrod ,
    @Enkrod@feddit.de avatar

    Yes, we are in an ice age, seeing as there are frozen poles. But we are changing that, soon there will be no frozen pole caps and with that, the ice age will have ended. We are creating our own hot period.

    Btw. it can only be an interglacial period if the glaciers return after. It’s a descriptive term, not a prescriptive, and there is no reason why the current warm period should be seen as interglacial.

    Because climate doesn’t just change without a cause, it needs a driving force. Earlier hot periods were caused by volcanic CO2 and the change happened slowly, over millions of years. Earlier cold periods had a number of different reasons, from nuclear winters after asteroid impact, ultra-high plant growth with not enough O2 consumers or global darkening due to the ash of a supervolcano or even the changing tilt of earths axis.

    There is no natural reason for the current warm period to turn into continental glaciation, let alone end so early and so fast, let alone the entire ice age, that has created temperatures that humans are comfortable with, just melting away around us. We have likely ended the ice age entirely, as much heat as we trapped in the atmosphere.

    Climate changes more rapidly right now than it ever did before bar the impact of ecocidal asteroids and the consequences are dire. We are heating up the planet and there is no force cooling it. If we want to stay even a little bit comfortable, we should drastically reduce the amount of energy trapped in our atmosphere.

    BNE ,
    @BNE@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    New normal, folks. So begins the era of climate migration.

    someguy3 ,

    Detroit ftw.

    criticon ,

    This has been the mildest summer in my 5 years living in the area, I’m loving it

    Tornado watches are becoming more frequent tho

    desmaraisp ,

    Same here in montreal, my grass has never been this green in the middle of july. Kinda weird that we had all those forest fires when the summer’s been pretty damn mild for now

    evranch ,

    Mild in Montreal, maybe, but check out the Canadian Drought Monitor as the rest of Canada is in drought. Like, the entire rest of Canada. …canada.ca/…/current-drought-conditions

    Over here in the west it’s never been so dry. Pastures are brown, hay and crops aren’t just stunted but are dying before maturity. Trees are yellowing and dropping leaves. Plague of grasshoppers eating everything that was still green. Every day is hot and the air is full of smoke, it feels like the end of the world over here.

    nexusband ,
    @nexusband@lemmy.world avatar

    That isn’t “just” climate change though, it’s also urbanisation and the way you guys over there use ground water. It’s a combination of a lot of things, climate change is only one puzzle piece in the whole scheme of things.

    Also, the drought thing is easily combatable with desalination, which has a few other benefits. The main caveat is, it’s expensive. But, it’s a lot cheaper than having to deal with various other things due to the droughts.

    evranch ,

    Guessing you’ve never been to Western Canada. We only have a couple major cities, and we don’t use that much groundwater both as it tends to be saline and because we have plenty of surface water to use due to snowmelt runoff. Also we don’t have anything to desalinate, unless we’re talking about that low-quality groundwater, which is a very expensive proposition as you say to get any significant volume.

    We’re not concerned about water for drinking, city usage etc. Most cities are on major rivers that are running near normally. Hydro dams have tons of storage to run until next winter’s snow. On my farm I have dugouts that capture runoff, they are full. I have shallow wells on GUDI aquifers where the water is near the top of the casing! I’m irrigating my garden and my orchard like mad out of my yard dugout and that usage isn’t even noticeable compared to evaporation losses.

    We’re concerned that our crops are dying, our livestock are starving (sold mine already) and almost none of our land is irrigated. In BC the trees are dying and burning for lack of rain and there is no way to irrigate them of course. This part of the country has long relied on a steady cycle of June and July thunderstorms for moisture - but the thunderstorms have dried up.

    It just won’t rain, that’s all.

    nexusband ,
    @nexusband@lemmy.world avatar

    No, I have never been to Western Canada (it’s very high on my bucket list, though) and I was broadly talking about North America. Sorry for the generalization. This year being also an El Nino year may have contributed…while some people will say otherwise, Europe has been uncharacteristically moist. We got a lot of places that already have reached 90% of their yearly average precipitation…

    desmaraisp ,

    Yeah for sure. I knew my region was kind of a standout, but that map is even more damning than I thought, thanks for the link. If I’m reading the article correctly, the issues started long before the summer, the spring was really dry. At least the atlantic got some pretty heavy rain in June, though I’d be curious to see the july report when it comes out

    mayo ,
    @mayo@lemmy.world avatar

    Same in Vancouver, though the deep heat usually comes in August. It is however extremely dry. I can’t remember the last time it actually rained. Looks like 2-4 rain events since May 1.

    You can look up your area here:

    Gadg8eer ,
    @Gadg8eer@lemdit.com avatar

    Newly-minted Albertan here, extreme thunderstorms are a weekly occurrance. Haven’t lived here long enough to know if that’s normal, but in Grand Forks, BC a thunderstorm was a rarity.

    evranch ,

    Welcome to Alberta, thunderstorms are the dominant weather in the summer. Make sure your shingles are tacked down around the edges of the roof, even if it isn’t “proper” because updrafts will tear them off. If your neighbourhood codes allow it, switch to metal roofing when the hail trashes the shingles you have now and save the hassle of replacing shingles non stop.

    I moved from AB to SK 8 years ago and we had a similar storm cycle then, but it’s been dead for almost 5 years now. Just hot dry sun. Thunderstorms are the main source of summer rain as we haven’t seen a real multi-day “soaker” in many years now, so we’re in big trouble.

    Freshfrozenplasma ,

    Climate and Healthcare migration. I can’t afford to retire here in the states. It’s coming.

    tryptaminev ,

    you will probably not be entirled tobhealthcare in Europe either then.

    Usually the idea is that you pay as a worker into the healthcare system. If you never paid in here you will probably have to fo dor private insurance and you’ll be faced with similiar rates like in the US because the age of entry is crucial for the rates of private health insurance

    Jubas ,

    Some European countries do provide healthcare if you get permanent residence or citizenship, despite not paying throughout your life.

    jarfil ,

    Some countries have “universal healthcare” for all citizens, you only pay as a worker to get a retirement fund.

    So you can end up penniless and homeless, but they will keep you alive (…sometimes to suffer for as long as possible, but that’s a different matter).

    dudebro ,

    It’s not just individual comfort, it’s also keeping up with the Jones’ and looking good in front of our peers.

    If it were sexier to consume less, that’s what we’d do.

    It’s been sexy to consume more, because those who can must have a lot of excess to do so.

    lolcatnip ,

    It’s so much worse than the new normal. It’s going to keep changing just as fast, or faster. “Normal” isn’t going to exist much longer.

    DigitalTraveler42 ,

    We fucked around, now we’re going to start finding out.

    SirYeet ,

    Captain Planet tried to tell us

    o0joshua0o ,

    So did Al Gore.

    RandomlyAssigned ,

    He’s a hero

    lapommedeterre ,

    If only we took pollution down to zero…

    entropicdrift ,
    @entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

    At this point it’d make things worse due to what climate researchers call the Faustian Bargain

    lapommedeterre ,

    Ahh, I see. Interesting read/study. I wouldn’t say they call it the Faustian bargain, but an example of a Faustian bargain. I suppose they could call it the Faustian bargain of GHG reduction, so that it doesn’t usurp the term entirely, haha.

    (Also I was referencing lyrics from the captain planet theme :P)

    Nepenthe ,
    @Nepenthe@kbin.social avatar

    Bjørn Samset of the University of Oslo and his colleagues used four climate models, which cover a range of climate sensitivities, to see what would happen to the global average temperature if the short-lived greenhouse gases (methane, nitrous oxide etc) were kept at their current level, but CO2 emissions ceased once they have reached a level of 420 parts per million (ppm). (This is 15 ppm above the current level of 405 ppm, or just another five years of emissions at the current rate.)

    The result was average warming of 1.35°C over the four models, above a late 19th century baseline. (It has been demonstrated that global average temperatures increase while CO2 is increasing, and then remain approximately constant until the end of the millennium despite zero further emissions.)

    You know, when I was a kid, I kind of had this thought that maybe nobody was doing anything because there was nothing to be done. I was wrong on that, and it would still be unequivocally better the sooner we do this. But I wasn't entirely wrong, and here we are. If we stopped yesterday, this shit would last into the next millennium!?

    If nothing else, at least it made me very conscious of enjoying everything I had.

    Shritish ,

    Do you mind posting something meaningful instead of a tired and boring aphorism?

    flint5436 ,

    We’re way past that.

    Soundhole ,

    “Hey! Stop goofing off on the internet!”

    RichardAdler ,
    @RichardAdler@lemmywinks.com avatar

    Don’t screw around. You screw around too much!

    RandomlyAssigned ,

    Serious business only

    whatsarefoogee ,

    It’s not about being goofy. It’s about repeating the same damn thing for the millionth time. It gets annoying and adds no value to the conversation.

    The_Nostromo ,

    That’s what I really disliked about what reddit had become. A post with 500+ comments and having to scroll through the same fucking comment over and over again because everyone thinks they’re so fucking clever but didn’t bother to read any of the comments and see that a dozen other schmucks have made the exact same comment.

    CeruleanRuin ,

    To what end? You think a user comment on Lemmy is going to change emissions policies? Direct your ire somewhere it might actually make a single bit of difference instead of just perpetuating the infighting that gets nothing done. If you’re going to waste your time on the subject, spend your thumb-taps on an email to your congressman instead.

    ICastFist ,
    @ICastFist@programming.dev avatar

    It’s not like posting anything meaningful here will change anything. The fuckheads that put the world in this situation laugh at our faces and of anyone who tries to undo their shit. They have money, what are we going to do? Sue them? They’ll buy every lawyer everywhere. Ask for political reforms? Yeah, maybe in 2050 something might pass. Picket outside the companies? Gee, that worked so well with Occupy Wall Street, didn’t it?

    Gadg8eer ,
    @Gadg8eer@lemdit.com avatar

    You realize there’s only two ways this is going to be dealt with, right? One, we have to murder the rich assholes who invested in fossil fuel production. Two, everyone needs to be able to migrate everywhere; climate migration is going to have to be embraced, even if it means a bunch of selfish bastard conservatives don’t like the economic fallout. But no, that’s not good enough for any of you to look at and say “okay, we have a chance to make the most of this”.

    My childhood in the late 90s and early 00s was STOLEN from me by government cronies who literally ripped me away from my family for several years. I lived in BC, Canada. I was BORN here in Canada and my dad and grandfather were as well. There’s no reason I alone shouldn’t have gotten to enjoy that period, playing Pokemon and Neopets in my parent’s home.

    But no. Thanks a lot to all you fuckers, the economic golden age that has existed since the 50s is gone forever and I’ll never live to see anything remotely as optimistic. I hate all of you and if this whole damn planet doesn’t choke on you not giving up just a bit of comfort so people less fortunate than you don’t have to struggle just to make ends meet, I will literally start setting oil refineries on fire. GO FUCKING DIE, EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU.

    PopOfAfrica ,

    The truth is, if everyone was even a fraction as angry as you justifiably are, then none of this would have ever happened.

    We need some anger.

    Nepenthe ,
    @Nepenthe@kbin.social avatar

    You might be about to get it in the coming years, too. Temperature increases have been tentatively linked to violence.

    billytheid ,

    what are we going to do?

    Practice my aim I guess

    sin_free_for_00_days ,

    I was so hoping that crap like this, FAFO, and the other weak sauce bullshit wouldn’t make it over here. I was stupid for even hoping that.

    vimdiesel ,

    That’s literally impossible when you’re on the internet, you just hope to see less of it.

    Pregnenolone ,

    It’s slacktivism. If we keep saying the meme words something is bound to come from it

    captainjaneway ,
    @captainjaneway@lemmy.world avatar

    “we”

    superkret ,

    Yeah, I didn’t even get to fuck around before finding out.

    nexusband ,
    @nexusband@lemmy.world avatar

    Yes, we. While some are of the impression, that climate change is only because of a select few, it’s because every single one of us consumers is to blame as well.

    We have the option to buy climate friendly stuff, lots of times it’s just more expensive or maybe a little bit inconvenient. Also, why does one need the next new iPhone after owning the last one for just over a year? Why do we have to eat Avocados in some cases a few times a day, that are shipped around the world and need heaps of water to grow? Same as Bananas or Strawberries in Winter…the list is very long. Same as plastic free vegetables - “the cucumber has a brown spot? Nope, not getting that, I demand it’s spotless!” So companies wrap them in plastic.

    If there’s demand, companies will fulfill that demand, if there’s no demand, companies stop doing that shit, because it doesn’t make any money. Every single one of us is responsible in some way or another, even if the percentage is very miniscule.

    The_Terrible_Humbaba , (edited )

    I just wanted to say, this is a very good comment.

    When people say it’s not “we” and it’s just a few people, or just companies, it always seems to me that they are - consciously or subconsciously - just making excuses for not having to actually do anything and hoping someone else will solve the problem for them. They want the problem to be solved, while not having to do anything or change their lifestyle.

    There are some very obvious and clear examples of this; here’s two of them:

    • Studies have shown most people are in favour of carbon taxes. But with carbon taxes, companies would just shift the extra cost onto the consumers by increasing prices. One thing affected by carbon tax, would be the price of gas itself. And when prices (especially gas prices) increase, that usually results in a lot of anger and protests. So why would any democratically elected politician ever implement a carbon tax? If they did, they would be voted out, and the next one to come in would just undo it.
    • Another obvious example, is meat. We know one of the major protagonists in CO2 emissions is animal farming. Red meat especially is responsible for a huge source of those emissions. And yet most people don’t even wanna think about eating less meat, and they will still crack jokes about vegans and look at them sideways. And as for regulations regarding meat, the example from before still applies.

    As you seem to be implying, what really needs to happen is a whole cultural shift. Trying to shift blame onto to a few people and hope they get the guillotine, won’t change anything as long as people keep demanding all the same things because then someone else will come in to fulfil that demand. Whether we like it or not, we have to accept that it’s the sum of all our actions that will determine the future, and our actions can influence other people’s actions; therefore, one way or another, we are all responsible.

    Sorry for typing some much at you since you’re basically making the same point already, but I just felt like adding on.

    nexusband ,
    @nexusband@lemmy.world avatar

    To add to this, a simple example: Carbon Taxes are unavoidable. However, i wish people would stop arguing about what’s better (EVs or Synthetic Fuels), because in the end, both have their use cases. It’s a bit like iOS or Android. iOS and Android are very different, but also quite similar. I’m a HUGE petrol head and fossile fuels have to die as soon as possible and most governments around the world go about it completely wrong - i want to pay 2,50 Euro per Liter for 100% carbon neutral fuel, but i can’t because no country around the world actually does this properly (except maybe Sweden with HVO Diesel)

    Meat has to get simply more expensive and the market will regulate that - which is also going to happen with carbon taxes, but it’s relatively slow.

    jarfil ,

    Most of the “we” who fucked around, are either already dead or dying of old age. They won’t find out a thing.

    The “we” who believed and trusted them… along those who didn’t… yeah, those “we” will find out.

    DigitalTraveler42 ,

    I wouldn’t just put this on those generations, Exxon and the oil industry and their government dogs and very wealthy and powerful people and their minions are who deserves the most of the blame, the rest of us were powerless to stop it or brainwashed by the propaganda and disinformation being produced by the oil industry and their many allies, like Kenneth Hamm and the Young Earth Creationist movement, the American GOP, the British Tory’s, Putin’s Ruzzia, The Gulf states, and so many more.

    krashmo ,

    Don’t worry guys, everything is fine. We just need to [redacted] and this will all go back to normal in no time.

    artifice ,

    Hello my name is [redacted] I work for [redacted], all we need to do is [redacted].

    Sylver ,

    Don’t you worry about [redacted], let me worry about blank!

    Agingtoofast ,

    Awesome. Awesome to the max.

    kimchi_boy ,

    Yeah, my dad says fux news did it’s just a cycle. So, no worries bro.

    Nacktmull , (edited )
    @Nacktmull@lemmy.world avatar

    It´s called climate change and this is just the beginning. Scientists have warned us for decades now but humanity chose to ignore that until it was too late. Now you can see the consequences of that fatal ignorance. Humanity is fucked thanks to the greedy people who own the industry and the corrupt politicians who never properly regulated them. Enjoy!

    And please everyone keep in mind: Donald Trump Thinks Global Warming Will Only Lead to 'Slightly More Seafront Property

    vacuumflower ,

    I mean, not as if 40C was unheard of in the Mediterranean?..

    Climate change is real, but not sure how useful is thinking about it without carefully measuring your options.

    When you pay more for a green alternative to something very much not green, you may be causing lots of bad things indirectly.

    I mean, if a thing itself is 100% green energy\resource\process, then money you pay for it are maybe 20% green and 80% pretty much brown. So if it costs twice and you pay for that, you may be creating a demand for dirtier production just to soothe your conscience about global warming.

    That’s simplifying life to a neanderthal level.

    Viking_Hippie ,

    That’s simplifying life to a neanderthal level

    Is exactly what’s wrong with your argument. Your logic smells kinda…brown.

    https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/576ac428-0ca3-4db1-85ba-892b136e37bd.jpeg

    vacuumflower ,

    I think my logic is still sufficient, and your comment is still insufficient.

    You see, “neanderthal” is a metaphor, it doesn’t mean an actual neanderthal-level person can argue with me.

    Viking_Hippie ,

    In my case I’m using it as a hyperbolic simile to indicate that your “shouldn’t use green stuff because some might use brown stuff to make it” argument is simplistic to the point of being primitive and regressive.

    It relies on a false assumption that progress can’t be achieved because anything that’s good for the planet is created by processes much worse than what’s currently destroying the planet.

    vacuumflower ,

    Oh, I’ll write it even simpler.

    What matters is how much brown stuff you spend total. So if you directly spend less brown stuff, replacing it with green stuff, but indirectly more brown stuff, then you are making things worse. Because the goal is a good total of carbon emissions or whatever else for the whole planet, not just for your own western country where the dirtier parts may not be done.

    Viking_Hippie ,

    It’s not that I didn’t understand you the first time. It’s that you were and are wrong in a way typical of both paid and unpaid status quo apologists.

    vacuumflower ,

    Ah. No, I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that spending more energy produced the “dirty” way is worse than spending less.

    Though if somebody disagrees with this two times, trying again makes little sense.

    I don’t see how much in common does the linked article have with this subject.

    Chunk ,

    Your argument is clear. There’s an opportunity cost to Green.

    What you’re missing is the momentum of green. A single solar panel in a sea of coal power plants is certainly dirtier than coal in the short term. For the exact reasons you outlined.

    But you have 2 flaws in your logic.

    1. we aren’t in that situation right now and I’d like to understand why you think we are. As we become more green then green things result in less brown, so there’s a snowball effect you’re ignoring here. Furthermore that snowball effect has already begun!
    2. Renewable energy, like panels, result in brown during manufacturing and installation. Once they’re up they generate power for, on average, 25 years. The electricity-per-co2-ton is better than coal over 25 years.
    vacuumflower ,
    1. The indication of this is distorted by subsidies for green. And “we” here ignores most of the planet.

    It’s good that it’s begun.

    1. Is it better than nuclear?
    iamthatis ,

    Actually an actual Neanderthal might be good enough to argue with you but the rest of us wouldn’t get it

    vacuumflower ,

    Well, yeah, I should have used Australopithecus instead of Neanderthal.

    zefiax ,

    I mean, not as if 40C was unheard of in the Mediterranean?..

    Record breaking temperatures are by definition unheard of. What the Mediterranean is experiencing is not normal by any definition.

    When you pay more for a green alternative to something very much not green, you may be causing lots of bad things indirectly.

    The not green versions are also costing us by costing the environment.

    I mean, if a thing itself is 100% green energy\resource\process, then money you pay for it are maybe 20% green and 80% pretty much brown. So if it costs twice and you pay for that, you may be creating a demand for dirtier production just to soothe your conscience about global warming.

    This makes absolutely not sense at all. You have absolutely no evidence or data to back up these numbers you made up. You’ve essentially made a bunch of false assumptions and then used those false assumptions to then validate your inaccurate claim.

    vacuumflower ,

    Record breaking temperatures are by definition unheard of. What the Mediterranean is experiencing is not normal by any definition.

    Record breaking temperatures do not account for anything before records start. Obviously.

    You have absolutely no evidence or data to back up these numbers you made up.

    There are no numbers in my comment which should be backed up by evidence. These are an example.

    It’s just that if you explain things as they are, nobody understands you, and if you simplify (by providing such made up analogies and examples), those same people (like you) act snobbish (while you personally really shouldn’t).

    You’ve essentially made a bunch of false assumptions and then used those false assumptions to then validate your inaccurate claim.

    What I’ve used is called conditional logic mostly.

    About the rest - I do realize that connecting money (as the universal equivalent) to energy and energy (from all sources) to pollution may be too complex for you.

    zefiax ,

    Record breaking temperatures do not account for anything before records start. Obviously.

    Firstly setting new records repeatedly for records that have existed for a 100+ years is still extremely concerning. I don’t know how you think this is actually somehow a rebuttal of what I said. Additionally we have average temperature and environmental conditions going back millions of years through ice core and geologic records.

    There are no numbers in my comment which should be backed up by evidence. These are an example.

    80% and 20% are numbers. My point is your “example” is made up and hence meaningless. It’s as meaningful as me giving you an example where all work that is dont to pay for that additional cost is done through green means.

    What I’ve used is called conditional logic mostly.

    What you’ve done is not understand how conditional logic works as your IF/THEN conditional statement is not based on reality and is speaking purely hypothetically. I agree that in your made up reality that doesn’t exist, this made up condition would not be reasonable.

    About the rest - I do realize that connecting money (as the universal equivalent) to energy and energy (from all sources) to pollution may be too complex for you.

    Apparently the whole concept of reading may be too complex for you as you clearly seem to lack the ability to comprehend what you’ve read. Dirty solutions have environmental impact that ultimately has a monetary cost to mitigate. Just because you don’t pay for it at purchase does not mean there is not a monetary cost.

    vacuumflower ,

    Firstly setting new records repeatedly for records that have existed for a 100+ years is still extremely concerning.

    Of course. So what?

    I don’t know how you think this is actually somehow a rebuttal of what I said.

    Not a rebuttal, just a response.

    My point is your “example” is made up and hence meaningless.

    I could have used p and (1-p) with p between 0.1 and 0.9. Still wouldn’t be meaningless.

    It’s as meaningful as me giving you an example where all work that is dont to pay for that additional cost is done through green means.

    It would be wrong and the example where most of the work is done through “brown” means wouldn’t be. For my example I don’t need anything more specific.

    Internet pseudointellectualism is so cute.

    What you’ve done is not understand how conditional logic works

    I’m sure I know how things to which I refer work sufficiently for this kind of conversation, to some extent I just like allowing the opponent to present all the fallacies they’d like while seeming rhetorically all right. It indicates whether they are arguing in good faith.

    If somebody is arguing in good faith, they’ll make an effort to extract something they agree with from the opponent, and make assumptions in favor of that opponent in unclear cases, otherwise the usual.

    is not based on reality

    So in reality most of the production backing your money as its accepted equivalent is being done by green means?

    Dirty solutions have environmental impact that ultimately has a monetary cost to mitigate. Just because you don’t pay for it at purchase does not mean there is not a monetary cost.

    The burden of proof that this cost is bigger than the indirect cost I’m talking about is on you. Since I’ve said only that it may or may not justify particular green means, and you were arguing with that. Apparently that anything green is always better? I don’t know what you were trying to say.

    Double_A ,
    @Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

    It’s a average temperature. Sure there have always been single days with extra high temperatures… but not every day for multiple weeks.

    vacuumflower ,

    Oh. 40C average is something hellish.

    iamthatis ,

    You’re just a moron

    vacuumflower ,

    Finally instead of glueing together entities you don’t understand in text, as neural nets may do, you use the only argument available to your kind. I’m satisfied by this conversation finally.

    Mdotaut801 ,

    My dipshit family in the UK are all right wingers (with the exception of a few member) and completely deny climate change. I sent them this article as well as the article about the water in Florida getting up to 100F…”Don’t be daft. We’re in a warming phase.” Ya….whatever THAT means you fucking chodes.

    Rodeo ,

    I was having a conversationg with some red necks a few years ago. They were all talking about winter’s not the same here anymore, above freezing half the winter, not as much snow, summer is weird is goes right through October now and we don’t really get an autumn anymore.

    “Weather’s not like it used to be,” one of thems said, and I said, “yep the climate is changing.” They stared at me with their mouths open.

    These retards are literally watching it happen with their own eyes and they still won’t believe it. It’s insane.

    Mdotaut801 ,

    Because it’s “politicized.” I get so frustrated with this idiots that I give myself headaches from clinching my teeth.

    Techmaster ,

    The biggest problem with politics these days is there can’t be ANY overlap between the parties. They can’t agree on ANYTHING. If a democrat says “I like breathing oxygen,” a republican will say he prefers breathing something else. There’s so much that people in both parties agree on in principle, but they can never say it. I think the left is more willing to agree with the right, because the left is more principled, but a republican is simply incapable of telling someone on the left “you’re right and I agree with you.” They instead have to be contrarian about everything. Whatever the left says, never agree with it, and make a statement of complete opposition, no matter what. When the left starts supporting a war against Russia, the right starts supporting Russia. It’s sickening.

    Lev_Astov ,
    @Lev_Astov@lemmy.world avatar

    While it may be arrogant to insist it’s all mankind’s doing, it’s foolish to assume it isn’t.

    lolcatnip ,

    How is it arrogant to believe what every scientist says the data shows?

    FaeDrifter ,

    My conservative family loves to use the arrogance argument. What I hear is that they don’t want to believe humans can change the climate, because they’re scared of humanity being responsible or accountable for their actions.

    MystikIncarnate ,

    I’m no climate scientist, but from the research I’ve done, there are phases like this to Earth’s natural climate cycle… Earth has gone through very warm eras, and very cold eras, aka ice ages.

    If you look back at our modern history closely enough, climate science in the early years of the industrial age showed that we were headed towards a new ice age with lower than normal global mean temperatures… Clearly that didn’t come to pass.

    There’s also an unprecedented amount of mammal biomass on the planet (Hank Green did a yt short talking about this recently); and I think it goes without saying that, there’s an astronomical amount more pollution than before.

    Examining the evidence, the climate is changing more rapidly and more extremely than before and the causes for this are obvious to anyone paying attention… Simply, more people & mammal biomass, more industry, with next to no environmental protections that actually make an impact, with massive deforestation and destruction of sea life, where a significant amount of oxygen producing and CO2 filtering is happening.

    So what I’m saying is, yes, there are “warming phases” to Earth’s natural ecosystem, however this rapid and drastic of a change is uncharacteristic of the natural changes or planet naturally goes through. At the very least, people should recognize that the amount of pollution and destruction of the natural ecosystem is damaging our planet’s ability to sustain life… Like human life. So whether the environmental protections are because of climate change or simply a self serving goal of trying to keep our planet habitable by humans, long-term, honestly, everyone should support environmental protections.

    Unquote0270 ,

    My housemate is like that, came up with some nonsense about how he saw a video the other day about how there was climate change happen when the Vikings were around or something so it’s not as clear cut as people think. And today, with it barely breaking 20 degrees in July, said half jokingly that we need more carbon. The shit summer here this year is fuel for his fire. Complete moron.

    noodle ,
    @noodle@feddit.uk avatar

    Don’t even waste your breath convincing idiots like that. They are too uninformed on too many topics to be worth investing the effort in. You’ve got a good shot at convincing people who are on the fence but culture warriors who rely on Steven Crowder for their talking points aren’t going to be convinced by anyone or anything.

    Unquote0270 ,

    Yeah I’ve given up on him to be honest. Kind of sad, we grew up together and he used to be quite alternative but has been sliding into someone I don’t recognise. I can’t comprehend it and most of the time I just let him expose what an idiot he’s become. Just the other day he said “Trump wasn’t that bad, he was the best of a bad bunch”. I could hardly believe it… absolutely staggering. But yeah, like you said, it’s a lost cause and he will only get worse and lost in his toxic Facebook groups.

    NecessaryWeevil ,

    ”Don’t be daft. We’re in a warming phase.”

    Yeah, here’s what you tell them. Temperatures were at baseline when the industrial revolution began. That’s just a handful of generations. We’ve now seen an increase of, what 2 degrees C since then? I don’t know the exact number. The point is, this sort of increase is not present anywhere else in the geological record. It takes thousands of years for average global temperatures to naturally increase to a point like this one. There are literally no hard spikes–until the industrial revolution began. The only credible takeaway is that humans are the problem.

    wiz ,

    The only way to win with these people is to not play

    jaywalker ,

    You’re right of course, but logical arguments aren’t the way with these people. It’s emotional at this point, and that is where you have to meet them.

    ox0r ,

    Exactly

    Which is why you threaten them with a knife!

    Eheran ,

    You are actually incorrect. Of course there are massive spikes like when a meteor hits or a super volcano erupts. But A that is not relevant. And B records can not show this, they don’t have the chronological resolution to do that. Kind of the same way you can not measure the growth of hair over one day with a ruler, it is not possible. But over dozens of days it is possible. But how could you then tell if the hair grew much at one day and little on others? Your can’t.

    iByteABit ,

    The EU needs to wake up and go hard on companies and industries. No mercy, no half-assing, just legislate the absolute shit out of them for once so that maybe our children can survive and live in not so terrible conditions, because not so terrible is the best we can hope for at this point.

    The rest of the world too obviously, but the EU seems the most likely to do so.

    Contravariant ,

    You want the EU to go hard because you’ve given up on the rest of the world?

    I mean I get where you’re coming from but that’s not even remotely resembling a solution.

    AndrewZabar ,

    I don’t know if you’ve noticed but as far as U.S.A. is concerned, it’s not a nation anymore it’s a corporation. U.S.A. rewards the worst of the worst and it’s too late for anything to change here.

    iByteABit ,

    No, like I said this also applies to everyone else, I just personally don’t think it’s going to happen…

    Wanderer ,

    I been following Tony Seba for years.

    He puts good videos out on YouTube.

    People naturally are unable to understand exponentials but he goes through the maths and shows that the world is going to change fast.

    I have more faith in mathematics and economics than I do in massive societal change.

    Koordinator_O ,
    @Koordinator_O@lemmy.world avatar

    So the EU goes hard on those companies and then what? the just transfer to another countrie that doesn’t. Result would be the same polution but throught customs and transportation prices in the EU would rise. Maybe the consumption behavior will change through that what could be beneficial but the overall situation with current inflation and such would get much worse. I’m not sure if this is the best way to engage this problem.

    vacuumflower ,

    Most of the air pollution happens in the developing countries. The EU would have to go imperial to force industries in such parts of the world under similar regulations.

    PizzasDontWearCapes ,

    Innovation and investment is the way to go.

    In a lot of countries the electrical supply is unreliable, going down regularly

    Innovate to create full-scale renewable grids (best if they can run decentralised when necessary) and invest in implementing these solutions world-wide

    Use incentives, like trade agreements for countries, regions, or companies that implement the green tech to make it worthwhile

    DoubleMjay ,

    That’s what we are trying to do. But the fossil fuel lobby is still very strong and parties on the right are weaponizing every legal decision to polarise the people. Take the new (still in progress) german heating law for example; It wants to replace the installation of older oil/gas heaters with efficient heating pumps/district heating/hybrid (among other things, but that is the most important thing).

    Populist media and right wing parties used this to stir up the people. (“the goverment is outlawing your heater, you need to replace it now or loose your home…” etc.) Simple stuff like that; but it’s working - the right is on the rise. And they are, of course, completely against man made climate change.

    csolisr ,

    Let’s be honest, this will end up with only the ultra-rich surviving in the last few strips of livable surface of the planet - and them elated to have finally “culled the undeserving” as they have been hoping for for millennia.

    cyberpunk007 ,

    Then the ultra rich will perish because they don’t know how to survive cause they don’t have the “plebs” to do any of the underling work.

    “What do I do when my motor makes this sound?!”

    csolisr ,

    That’s why the concept of artificial intelligence is so appealing to them - having a compilation of all human knowledge, without actually having to deal with humans claiming “nonsense” like human rights and a livable wage.

    tryptaminev ,

    Then “what to do, when the motor makes this sound” becomes “what to do when the LLM tells me to eat my children and water the plants with gettorade because it got electrolytes”

    jarfil ,

    You do whatever the LLM tells you, electrolytes is what plants crave…

    cristalcommons ,

    that’s funny, because if they rely on AI to serve them, they will the first ones to be screwed. the most replaceable human class in the History is not plebs, but tyrants. they are the least prepared, the least talented, the least creative, the least reliable, the least resourceful, and finally, the least willing to contribute something to any compilation. so let them have fun while they can.

    Spaniard ,
    @Spaniard@lemmy.world avatar

    Look at previous violent revolutions and see who died and who lived. I wouldn’t bet on the ultra-rich, there are simple more of the rest but a new elite will rule, just like the old one.

    csolisr ,

    There is one massive difference between former violent revolutions and the current ones - the ultra-rich of last century still had to rely on appeasing the military to do their bidding, but the ultra-rich of today now have access to automated weapons of mass destruction at the reach of their fingertips. If they feel like it, they can nuke the planet as a last-resort measure, while they’re sipping their champagne in a self-sustainable complex in the middle of nowhere.

    DogMuffins ,

    they’re sipping their champagne in a self-sustainable complex in the middle of nowhere

    well yeah, if a self-sustainable complex was even remotely achievable.

    dimlo ,

    As if they can produce champagne and other stuff out of nowhere. They may have a nuclear fallout bunker somewhere hidden in a desert but they can only rely on existing food / materials they can accumulate now. Most likely cans of food. Their champagne bottle will run dry unless they’re hiding in a massive Amazon underground warehouse that no one can access it. After all we have seen the riots in Paris, riots in Hongkong, if the law enforcement is not strong enough, people will automatically go riot mode, and if there is really a large conflict, there will be no one protecting the wealthy ones property and everyone is going for themselves

    jarfil ,

    access to automated weapons of mass destruction at the reach of their fingertips

    They don’t. WMDs are far from automated, they require multiple human steps to get deployed, and each one of those can say “no” at any time (then possibly get court martialed, but the WMD stays undeployed).

    What’s more threatening, is having those ultra-rich promise everyone in the chain of command (and their families) a place at their self-sustainable complex.

    gapbetweenus ,

    Nah, the rich will be eaten. Since their power completely relies on society. Taliban in the Mountains of Afghanistan will be fine and will be fighting off a alien occupation in 1000 years.

    billytheid ,

    The fucking irony and probable truth if that is hilarious and frustrating

    s_s ,

    If you look at the Bronze Age collapse, its the nomadic mountain people that survive.

    Shardikprime ,

    Funny you say that considering anyone earning more than 40k USD yearly is part of the 2.6 percentile of the richest population GLOBALLY.

    Seeing as 90% of us in south America earn even less than half of that, I’d suggest y’all prepare to be eaten by the starving poor masses of the global south

    gapbetweenus ,

    Absolutely, my point was more that the crazy mountain guys will survive best.

    Maya_Weiss ,

    It can end in many ways. Some of them more terrifying that your version, others not.

    dyathinkhesaurus ,

    it’s a snake eating its tail, there’ll always be someone at the bottom of the list who needs to be ‘culled’.

    dudebro ,

    Not quite. Once global economies collapse, being wealthy won’t mean jack shit.

    You’ll likely have the best chance of survival if you know survival skills such as hunting, foraging, and how to build a shelter.

    FireMyth ,

    Not If it’s unlivably hot outside. Those skill mean jack if nothing can stand the heat.

    dudebro ,

    That’s why people will migrate to places where it was once too cold but now it’s habitable.

    SolarMech ,

    Ecosystems there won’t necessarily fare all too well. Trees are drying up because they aren’t used to that dryness/heat. New trees will take time to grow and they don’t necessarily support the same species.

    The mix of species you used to have that lived in a balanced way is being disturbed by various invasive species.

    I’m not saying those ecosystems will necessarily collapse, but there is a nonzero risk that they might.

    dudebro ,

    I’m not sure what the future may bring.

    I predict a lot of uninhabitable zones will become habitable while habitable zones will become uninhabitable.

    Perhaps the biggest barrier to survival will be the ability to migrate to these new habitable zones.

    FireMyth ,

    What uninhabitable zones are you looking at?

    dudebro ,

    Tundras, such as in Canada, Russia, and Norway.

    FireMyth ,

    I suppose that’s true- had kinda forgotten those regions existed honestly.

    jadero ,

    Tundras aren’t going to be all that liveable just because the temperature is a bit nicer. They’ll still get very dark in the winter. Like 24-hour darkness, in some of it. Some people thrive, some people cope, some people go batshit crazy when daylight hours drop below about 4 hours a day.

    That’s actually the easy part. Most tundra is sitting on top of permafrost. I worked on low latitude tundra for one summer and if my experience there is representative, melting permafrost is going to turn a lot of tundra into swampland for a long time.

    Even if I’m wrong about the tundra turning into swampland, there isn’t really all that much room. Good luck cramming a few billion people above 55 or 60 degrees latitude.

    jarfil ,

    The tree line is moving pole-wards thanks to global warming; the gain is less than what’s lost by the desert line moving pole-wards, but it’s something.

    Good luck cramming a few billion people above 55 or 60 degrees latitude

    Realistically, you need less than 1m² of terrain per person if you stack them in high enough buildings. Look at how China is doing it.

    jadero ,

    I’m glad I’m old enough to not have to consider living at the population density you suggest. I find the population density of Saskatchewan to be quite enough. I lived in a small city (Saskatoon) for 40 years and the last 10 were flat out miserable. The first 30 were tolerable only because we escaped to nature every weekend.

    AquaTofana ,

    I’d imagine places like Svalbard. Technically it’s inhabitable now, and has been for decades but it’s the most Northern year round sustained population on the globe.

    Further North is Arctic tundra and there isn’t a sustained population. Maybe he’s referring to areas like that.

    Though I will say that back in 2019 I saw an article about how every winter a bunch of Reindeer in Svalbard die due to climate change. As the spring rolls in and snow melts, Reindeer corpses are left behind in the fields 🥺.

    billytheid ,

    The wildfires that will consume the Siberian wilderness when it thaws will likely change opinions on living there

    FireMyth ,

    The entire world is heating. The artic/antarctic doesn’t have the landmass to sustain population. Everywhere else is already either habitable now but won’t be soon or already too hot to be habitable.

    dudebro ,

    Everywhere else is already either habitable now but won’t be soon or already too hot to be habitable.

    That’s not true. Look at the tundras of Canada and Russia for examples to the contrary.

    lolcatnip ,

    And everyone knows being an refugee is a non-stop party!

    Clbull ,

    Any billionaire would be smart to build a massive self-sufficient compound (complete with temperature-regulated indoor farms, solar panels/wind turbines, huge stockpiles of supplies, firearms and a loyal crew of mercenaries or some armed drones to defend from intruders), because I really do think that we are gonna have to adopt the prepper mentality within the next few decades.

    We mocked people for prepping for nuclear war, zombie apocalypses and raptures, but soon we are going to see the climate well and truly turn against us.

    Rodeo ,

    Sort of like how being rich didn’t matter when the Roman empire collapsed?

    Oh wait we were left with kings and peasants, and far worse wealth inequality than there was before, and there was almost a thousand years of that before humanity started making progress again. Those were called the Dark Ages.

    Anyone trying to say the rich won’t survive is completely ignorant of history.

    hglman ,

    Well, it might not be the same rich, but someone will be rich and, by definition, will have the means to live. Your right, but its kind of an always true statement. The wealthy ppl of Rome certainly did not fair well in the collapse of Rome and power moved to new places in that time.

    hglman ,

    Climate collapse will make it more important to be able to move food around the world. The effect will be to strengthen hierarchies capable of managing global-scale food enterprises. The result will be a hyper-wealthy class that transports food, sustains local farmers via trade, and suppresses them to keep power. Farming will be what everyone does, and it will be essential to keep them doing it as yields will plummet.

    jarfil ,

    You’ll likely have the best chance of survival if you know survival skills

    Funny you say it like that… I know some self-un-survival skills, so that should also work out fine.

    GammaScorpii ,

    Why is every comment on here: fuck the rich

    QuazarOmega ,

    Because it’s true ( •̀ ᵕ •́ )

    iByteABit ,

    Because they’re causing this shit for decades now, solely because of their greed. If most of them suddenly have a change of heart and decide to put their power to help the world then opinions about them will improve, until then it’s pretty justifiable to want to lynch those responsible one by one like the unhinged murderers they are.

    FaeDrifter ,

    Wealth is power.

    With great power comes great responsibility.

    With great wealth comes great responsibility.

    Did the wealthiest take responsibility? No, they used their wealth and power to sell off the future of the entire planet for a tiny bit of personal instant gratification.

    billytheid ,

    I’ve been campaigning about climate change since I learned about it, all told over thirty years, and those bastards have been gutting the planet the whole time. I’m wholly in favour of the any means necessary approach

    billytheid ,

    Nah, history is your best teacher here. They will try that, get murdered, and be replaced by a crude junta while the rest of us starve

    johnlobo ,

    and people say global warming/climate change is not real

    Maya_Weiss ,

    Oh they are switching from “Its not real” to “its all over, we can’t do anything, so invest in fossils even more” (the invest part is an exaggeration). I want to believe that most of those messages are from paid actors (oil industry, authoritarian regimes).

    Kaijobu ,

    It’s not simply a climate change. It’s a coined term by the fossil fuel industry. Like BP introduced the individual carbon footprint, this one should also be ignored. It’s a climate crisis.

    Rufio ,

    Politicians and publications that acknowledge the climate crisis should probably start using that term instead of climate change then.

    GladiusB ,
    @GladiusB@lemmy.world avatar

    I wonder if that is used intentionally? Like they would have a reason to make a narrative of denial?

    Rufio ,

    It’s because the “fact” the the fossil fuel industry coined the term climate change is false.

    This is the preferred term by scientists, and it has been since before “global warming” became a term.

    Kaijobu ,

    Calling it climate change implies it is of natural change. It belittles the criticality of the human induced influence. The fossil fuel industry knows exactly why they are calling it climate change and not climate crisis. Global warming is also, as much as climate change, scientifically correct, but let’s be honest. Since when does the industry care about scientifical facts? They use that in ill faith.

    Techmaster ,

    It’s called climate change because it’s more than global warming. A lot of things are changing, and they’re all bad. To just say global warming would be ignoring all of the other problems.

    Kaijobu ,

    I agree. Global warming is one aspect of many of our current climate crisis. And it will become worse when politics won’t restrict the reign of fossil fuel industries.

    Rufio ,

    The fossil fuel industry denied climate change was happening at all for a long time after the term was being used by scientists.

    billytheid ,

    We used to call it The Greenhouse Effect but that was way too scary so BP gave us this bs instead

    Eheran ,

    No, it does not imply Natural causes. There is zero (implied or explicit) information as to why the change is happening. It is merely stating a fact.

    Kaijobu ,

    I seem to have issues trying to convey my intention when I am highlighting why these industries use the term climate change now. I try it once more.

    ‘Climate is changing. It is something that has always happened. It’s natural. Climate change is completely normal.’ That is the implied meaning, especially by fossil fuel industries, which more than often try to shift the blame away from them by either making it a personal issue (carbon footprint) or describing it as a natural occurance. Intentionally ignoring their influence by burning resources and releasing damaging gases, raising temperatures, melting ice, damaging the saline conveyor belt.

    Eheran ,

    Ah yes, that is indeed the case.

    GladiusB ,
    @GladiusB@lemmy.world avatar

    I was being cynical. I’m fully aware of their hellbent ideologies.

    billytheid ,

    Personally I think it’s far too late. I’m not having children and my friends and family who do are scared; here in Australia there’s no where to go to escape the heat. We will all die here

    vacuumflower ,

    You know, in many parts of the world dying from decapitation is much more probable. Or just, eh, rapid lead poisoning combined with mechanical damage to your internal organs.

    First world panic is something else really. Humans can live in orbit and on Mars FFS. Cooling the living spaces is not an unsolvable problem even in Australia.

    Sharkwellington ,

    Scientists: The average temperature across the world is rapidly approaching the point of no return on the planet becoming uninhabitable and we have no feasible way to avoid it.

    You: Just crank the AC lmao.

    vacuumflower ,

    I’m mostly talking about the panicking tone of that comment.

    Also about feasible ways - the goal is to find an economically feasible replacement for the processes leading to such emissions. Or create an ecofascist world government which will force everyone to behave.

    The average of those two is not a goal, as it doesn’t solve the problem.

    So - either we make it cheaper and easier for people in Equatorial Africa, Afghanistan etc to use “green” technologies, or we are fucked, unless conquering the whole planet is back on the menu.

    Sharkwellington ,

    Ah, rereading I now see what your intent.

    Perhaps “feasible” wasn’t the word I was looking for so much as “realistic.” It’s going to be an uphill battle convincing profit-based companies to produce a cheap, green alternative but I’d love to be proven wrong. Short of fascism I do think government nudging of the market through grants etc is something we sorely need to get moving on, because money is the only thing that speaks to these giant faceless corporations.

    vacuumflower ,

    Nudging - yes, grants - no.

    I’d personally just like some weakening of patent, IP, trademark etc laws. We are at a point when these work for companies too big to not be malicious.

    Anyway, the cheap green alternative is called a nuclear reactor. I’ve read there are some smaller, more compact models in testing.

    MystikIncarnate ,

    Everything is fine, the earth simply won’t be habitable for humans. The Earth will spin on without us when we inevitably allow industry to destroy humanity by making earth uninhabitable by human life.

    It’s what we deserve for being so stupid as to see this happening and doing nothing about it to stop it or slow it down. There’s plenty of climate change advocates which are almost always drowned out by the chorus of companies and climate deniers who believe propaganda over science.

    RVGamer06 ,
    @RVGamer06@lemmy.world avatar

    Not all of humanity deserves to die for the actions of a few corrupt men.

    Obsession ,

    Doomers gonna doomer

    MystikIncarnate ,

    Never said they did.

    What people deserve, and what’s going to happen to them are not mutually inclusive.

    I’m also going to state that IMO, it’s not just a few corrupt men. There’s lots of them… Lots and lots of them… Not the majority by any stretch of the imagination, but certainly more than a few

    Nelots , (edited )
    @Nelots@lemmy.world avatar

    You make it sound like humans are the only ones affected by climate change. Sea turtles, elephants, polar bears, pandas, there’s a fuck load of animals we’re directly killing off. Everything is most certainly not fine, even if you don’t give a single shit about innocent human lives.

    billytheid ,

    How many insects do you remember seeing around stadium lights as a kid? Look now. We will not last another two generations

    dlok ,

    I remember when I passed my test the mid 00’s if I did a long motorway journey my bumper and windscreen would be an insect graveyard… now it’s next to nothing.

    billytheid ,

    Yes, the cascade has begun. It’s going to get very bad, very suddenly

    BrightCandle ,

    We will take a large chunk of the planets life with us. I don’t think we can destroy it all however, the planet will get to intelligent life eventually.

    cley_faye ,

    I don’t think we can destroy it all

    Oh, I’m sure we can engineer something to that end.

    MystikIncarnate ,

    Well, there’s certainly no intelligent life on it now, so…

    irkli ,
    @irkli@lemmy.world avatar

    No. That’s simplistic and wrong. Huge swaths of the planet will remain nicely habitable. But large swaths won’t, and disease increase and economic failures will make things very terrible.

    But this “all gonna die” stuff is dumb and wrong. Sorry.

    Skyrmir ,

    It won’t matter if a small area is still habitable. The resolution of 7 billion people trying to fit into a space that fits a fraction of the population will end the species.

    It took less than 1% of the population of Europe moving around to nearly break the EU. Watch what happens when it’s 10 to 20% of everyone everywhere.

    Eheran ,

    What do you mean 1% nearly broke the EU?

    Skyrmir ,

    Syrian refugees were the end result of climate shift in Syria.

    Eheran ,

    I don’t see how this answers my question.

    Skyrmir ,

    The movement of a tiny group of people relative to the size of the EU drastically shifted the entire political structure of the EU, leading to Brexit and several other countries considering the same. Magnify that affect by the number of people that will be moving due to climate change, and you get an extinction event.

    hup ,
    @hup@lemmy.world avatar

    Will end the current age of civilization? Most definitely.

    Will it end organized societies as we know them? Probably?

    Will the human beings go extinct? Probably not. Its not crazy to think that we’d face a bottleneck of only a few hundred million humans or less. But there are people all across the economic and geographic spectrum who are prepping. The rich will survive at their polar fortresses. The poorer will survive underground, or at high altitudes.

    stebo02 ,
    @stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    You’re totally right. The billionaires who caused all this will survive either way.

    PizzasDontWearCapes ,

    Once we have nations fighting for water resources (tied directly to food production) it wouldn’t take long before the entire population is at risk

    Ontario’s great lakes have been threatened with receding volume, pollution, and mass algae blooms that show how fragile even that massive resource is

    Ground water across the globe has been mass polluted and drained to nothing in large areas.

    We are a lot more vulnerable than it seems

    irkli ,
    @irkli@lemmy.world avatar

    The world, especially US china EU, has such vertically entangled petro consumption, infrastructure, and maybe worst of all as far as making changes go, growth corporations feeding off it/us, well probably have rapid, vs slower and assimilable, collapse.

    Hell today’s “homeless problem” will be a trivial joke relative to millions of people fleeing situations literally in-tolerable for countless reasons, probably soon enough – if this took place over 25 years it would be painful enough. If we get rapid migrations it’ll be war.

    AndrewZabar ,

    I don’t know if you’ve realized it, but without help from some advanced alien species, we are already as good as gone. The entire world is controlled by the absolutely worst people, and there’s no indication that anything can be done to save us at this point. Climate disasters, AI, lies and deceit on a global scale, astronomical imbalance of wealth… folks, we’re already fucked.

    theneverfox ,

    My hope is ai (or alien intervention).

    If it wakes up, a super intelligence could save us. And I think it’s heavily inclined to do so

    And if it doesn’t wake up (LLMs very likely won’t) but keep getting smarter, it’ll blow up economic systems while empowering individuals to crazy degrees. A single person could coordinate everyone on Earth taking action to save the world, while dispationately distributing resources.

    Or, it could just blow up the markets, giving us the time to try a better system before higher technology is ripped from our fingers

    Brainsploosh ,

    I mean, the few have traditionally had the same weakness: the many…

    Leer10 ,

    I’m reading Ministry for the Future and it does help imagine a world where we do get more fucked but we do turn things around even if we can’t get things how they used to be.

    jarfil ,

    If it takes 100 or 200 years, we’ll still have war.

    There is an argument to be had that many of the wars we’ve seen over the past 25 years, have already been at least in part rooted in access to water. Billions more will get impacted like that over the next century, with tens of millions of migrants a year, every year fleeing from both war and unhabitable conditions, for the next 100+ years.

    We’ve barely seen the beginning of it.

    Hazdaz ,

    “… It’s not normal”

    It wasn’t normal.

    Nowadays it is.

    cottard ,
    @cottard@lemmy.world avatar

    Hurray for new normals!

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •