• 'A kind of dark realism': Why climate change is looking too big to solve
    29 replies, posted
“If you’re driving on a highway and the car in front of you stops short, and you slam on brakes and realize that you’re going to hit the guy no matter what, that’s not the time to take your foot off the brake,” said John Sterman, a professor of management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s business school. “And you certainly don’t step on the gas.”
So basically, we're banking on what's left of the smart minds in the US to come up with a miracle solution to get rid of the existing carbon in the atmosphere to prevent us from becoming Bejing the planet? Fucking sick.
Death is too kind for those who sold the world.
Welp too late to stop now! - Fossil Fuel companies
I'm sick of hearing about this. If there's nothing that can be done, just let the goddamn world burn.
That's exactly what this is arguing against. We're going to hit the car in-front of us, but it's still better to slam the breaks and hit at a lower speed than it is to just give up and ram him full speed, or worse speed up because "well we're gonna hit so it doens't matter".
Not a very helpful attitude to have
I swear to fuck, everyone needs to listen to Timothy Snyder. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCEPsyQF80
Stop with the defeatist bullshit. Climate change is horrible for humanity, surely, but what scientists are scared of isn't the total annihilation of mankind, but the dramatic reduction in resources, economic and social strain, and the mass refugee crisis that will follow so many coastal populations going underwater. It will be chaos and many will die, but both humanity and civilization will survive well intact. The reason we should be working now is to not only stop the worst, but mitigate the rest. We can't stop sea level rise, but we can prevent the worst of it, find solutions for coastal cities in rich countries, and (hopefully) find solutions for both the strain on our resources as well as the coming refugee crisis. We've got a lot on our plate, and our lives are bound to get worse, but its far from over. This is still a fight worth putting up.
I get the feeling some people on facepunch would rather die than accept that their their lives of relative comfort (especially compared to, for example, most of the African continent) are going to become less comfortable but still absolutely livable. Like seriously, if you're living in a first world country, you're more likely than not going to survive climate change and - it's all the people in poor countries that are going to die. But apparently a guaranteed significant change in lifestyle in the coming decades is too much to bear, so the whole world should just burn so we don't have to suffer being without all our cheap, mass produced goods.
the biggest problem is that it takes all of humanity to fight this but only a very small sliver of it to make it much much worse.
Well you may as well just go kill yourself then since you can't stop aging yeah?
Germany could have completely decarbonised by now if they had spent the money they've spent on wind farms and solar on nuclear energy. It's solvable but you have idiots on two sides hampering efforts: climate "skeptics" on one side and anti-nuclear greens on the other.
yeah but what if outkast put out a new album i wanna be around for that!
I find it so funny to think that so many people find it so hard to just look at the lives their grandparents and great grandparents lived were fucking alright! They mostly ate well, they got educated, reasonable healthcare. They were healthier and more active than us. They worked harder jobs, for sure and experienced more hardships. But at least in my case, my grandparents are very knowledgable, they have impressive recollection, insight and half of the shit we have to google, they already know. They had time to read books, reasonable access to transport and lived a less over-filled everyday life. They weren't stressed by constant branding up in their faces, they had time and peace to be inquisitive and evaluate their experiences. Meanwhile, modern luxuries like computers are getting more and more efficient, to the point that a Rasp pi can literally be used as a family desktop at 1/100th the wattage of the same performance 15 years ago. Honestly, i think the people so quick to whine and throw themselves into bottomless panic over this don't realize that even cutting down our consumption by 2/3rds won't actually impact our health, education potential and our ability to lead fulfilling lives. Life not being full of instant gratification isn't going to end civilization, but it DEFINITELY will put us much closer to our chance of fixing all of this. It'll also make the transition to sustainable energy much easier and ramping back up again afterwards is going to go a lot smoother. I think the rampant fatalism around this discussion is hurting more than it's helping.
Like, it's technically 100% feasible for supermarkets to literally have 0 packaging, it's just going to require a major change in the logistics chain, having people bring their own containers and such at the store.
Its also going to require human works skilled in tools that have basically fallen to the wayside.
What I'd rather not see is a hyperstratified society composed of those who inherited enough wealth to escape partying in New Zealand while the rest of the world explodes.
Just send some divers with axes and chop down that island!
Yeah I've seen a lot of fatalism and I do understand the sentiment. At our current rate, the planet is estimates to be inhospitable to most lifeforms by 2100, not quite a promising future. But instead of giving up, we should do everythig we can to hit the brakes. For reference, in the 60s they thought we would hit peak oil extraction by 2020ish, but due to improvements in efficiency and looking for alternative fuel sources, its been pushed to >2050. To everyone, don't give up. It's doable.
The latest hitman game has a finale mission that's setup is infiltrating an island party for a society of billionaires including the biggest energy companies preparing to buy shelters to do exactly this when climate change reaches its high point
even if one assumes there is no way to stop the world burning, why the fuck would you want to let the metaphorical flames spread freely? why not mitigate a terrible situation into a bad-but-livable one?
What that is saying is that bad shit is going to happen no matter what, but we should still do everything in our power to mitigate the effects so we do not make things even harder for ourselves down the line. Though I don't know how cleaning the carbon in the atmosphere comes in this analogy, unless the car just happens to also have retroboosters on the front.
The problem isn’t too big to solve, politicians are just too fucking stupid.
Pff, like they can agree to anything
Its too big to literally change society in time. It would take a massive undertaking to mitigate climate change. Sure we can slow it at this point with freat effort but there is no possible way we as a species are able to change within one generation to outright stop the worst of the damages. Thats not to say we shouldnt try to delay the onset of the effects as much as reasonably possible but we cant just ban deisle trucks overnight without crashing the economy and causing greater issues. Its a slow transition but we dont have time to fully stop the car before we hit the guardrail. Only we can hope to slow it enough to where we dont fly off the cliff.
At this point I would much rather risk meltdowns than have the entire fucking ecosystem die off.
You are free to terminate yourself whenever the news get too bothersome, and let the rest of us campaign for a less horrible future.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.