In a society individuals don't matter that much. There's systemic change when it comes from top down. Rarely from bottom up.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Report by IPCC: We have roughly 10 years to get climate change under control
- Thread starter Ottaro
- Start date
What's most upsetting here is I can think of people who have been dead for decades who raised the alarm bells. People like Carl Sagan and Alan Watts almost called the major problems we're facing, point by point.
Guess we'll be joining them soon.
He had the guantlet. Just say "every living creature alive now is immortal but can't have any children from here on out. Yeah we'd use up all the resources eventually in the universe, but it'd be a helluva long time to do it.
Indeed. Entropy would kill the universe anyway so might as well use it up first.
But maybe he believes that people need to be mortal for civilization to progress?
Does he have any idea what it's supposed to be "progressing to" though?
Is this character really shallow and poorly thought out???
No.
If they can search for food, that's still their environment. Deer don't just decide to become carnivores because they ate all the food they were used to in their environment. Non-migrating animals don't start migrating and expand their environment to areas that were covered by snow earlier.
which if you notice i didn't deny by any measure :)
but actually it's more in the last century..
we went rampant without regulation unaware of any sideffect of what we did, and by the time we realized the dependency was too much interwoven in the daily mechanism of our life..
as other have said, we can forego own car at large, but then what? china and india are running rampant on the usage of coal-driven energy..
this is china..
this is delhi..
if this was happening in any major cities of the western world (be it US or EU) there would be a major outcry...
heck, italy has "banned" any euro3 or lower car in lumbardy (major work hub) save a few VERY specific conditions.. basically cutting out from daily usage around 421.000 cars with this last move.. similar operation were carried out in other northern italy regions (unhironically, the environmental problems in terms of air quality seems to be mainly restricted to northern regionswhereas only few souther italy cities are affected)..
instead it happened in delhi.. do you know what's their OWN index value for air pollution in delhi? 200..
and guess their scale values..
151-200 Unhealthy Everyone may begin to experience health effects; members of sensitive groups may experience more serious health effects
201-300 Very Unhealthy Health warnings of emergency conditions. The entire population is more likely to be affected.
find here a real time situation: https://waqi.info/
this is a nice pic of the situation..
[IMG]https://thumb.ibb.co/ieBC9U/world_pollution.png[/IMG]
You're kinda ignoring those pictures existed in western nations for decades. Cheap reliable energy is crack for developing nations, even with the obvious health and environmental issues.
Sure. But let's take gaming as an example, Era can say, convince some people that lootboxes is predatory that prey on the young. ( I'm not saying you agree with that it's just an example ) Those people can stop buying lootbox, yet that wouldn't stop them from being a profitable. Getting the elected people to regulate it would have an infinitely bigger impact in comparison.
Even then imho that's an unfair comparison because 41,048 "gamer" ( on the broad sense, people who actually go as far as spending time on a gaming forum ) obviously has a much bigger impact on gaming compared to climate change which is impacted by the entirety of the planet population and a part of our impact can only be changed through elected people ( like let's say Public lighting ).
I know it's a very cynical point of view, but being able to say "I'm no longer part of the problem" does not mean you actuallly made any real improvement either.
And I say this as someone who don't own a car ( don't even have a driving licence ) and don't intend to have children. But neither of those choices were made because I thought it would help prevent/limit climate change, because I don't think that change only at my scale matter at all. This is also why on the other hand I don't care about eating meat because I'm not convinced in the slightest that I would save a single animal out of my entire life time; but I would celebrate any regulation with the goal of reducing meat consumption regardless of it's impact on myself if I think it will have an actual results.
i'm not..
eu, us, canada etc tried to get better and we did, albeit we did in the later part of our economic "renaissance" so to speak..
china and india are booming hence i don't see them going the green route at this point, unless they are available to handicap their growth, which is unlikely given how chinese government acts when anyone butts in their own agenda..
but I'm digressing...
Do I hope that we earth will not turn into scorched ground? sure..
Do I think that we will manage? not really, but hope should never die
But I for one will not renege that we did a lot of good things along with a lot of bad things...
just writing off the good things due to what we did wrong is just self-hating for the sake of itself, if you ask me..
imho :)
Nay... earth will always be here until the sun swallows her up. This is more like the earth tell human: bye, bitch.
Except per capita the US and Canada are far worse producers of carbon emissions than India and other developing countries.
You're conflating poor air quality regulations with carbon emissions.
In fact, an argument can be made that developing countries are already making better headway because they don't have ancient grids and coal/gas plants baked into their electrical grid with decades to go till their end of life. India is probably going to get a majority of their electricity from solar by next decade, forgoing coal and gas plants that were scheduled for production. Their coal pipleine has already shrunk like 25%, with that number increasing as it just becomes too cheap to make solar plants.
Um... yes they do.
For example.
I wan't suggesting that animals adapt their biology. No, deers don't become carnivores but animals will range into newly opened hospitable locations.
For example, see the increasing occurrences of mating between brown and Polar bears as the sea ice shrinks. Polar bears are ranging further to search for hunting grounds and brown bears now have access to areas that were previously made inaccessible by polar ice.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...olar-bear-grizzly-polar-hybrid-climate-change
It's remarkable just how on the nose that episode was. If they never put in the throwaway line about the planet's star having gone nova it would have been 1:1 what we're going through now, except not being near that level of technological advancement.
So I have about 10 years to develop a good enough excuse to delude myself in thinking we did our best but our best wasn't good enough? Got it.
Another reason why getting a vasectomy was worth it. It would be kind of sad to put my potential kids through that.
Update me when more than 50% of the current living polar bears start living in the tropics, and adapt to the heat there.
I would totally embrace PT, and vote for funding and expanding it every time it's on the ballot and support politicians who want more of it. The issue for me is the nearest bus stop is 5 miles away and it deosn't even go near my place of work. I would then have to walk another 5 miles to get on another bus system just to be dropped off 2 miles from work. I would literally have to leave my house 2 hours before my shift starts. So no thank you right now.
This in theory could be a great use of the internet.
We can't rely on governments to solve this problem but the people of the world could possibly all work together via the internet to control their own emissions to the point where it becomes relevant and significant.
I often think of the great things the internet could be used for, when in reality it is mostly used for garbage tier entertainment and often the spread of dangerous and hateful ideas instead.
We can't rely on governments to solve this problem but the people of the world could possibly all work together via the internet to control their own emissions to the point where it becomes relevant and significant.
I often think of the great things the internet could be used for, when in reality it is mostly used for garbage tier entertainment and often the spread of dangerous and hateful ideas instead.
Therein lies the fundamental problem. We've built society/lifestyle that is dependent on high energy usage. The developing nations want that same or better lifestyle. No one wants to make any concessions.
We knew about this since the 60s and even earlier. If we had planned our society around this threat back then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
So now you live in a residence that is not practical to support with mass transit.
So would i be fine if i signed a 20 year mortgage in houston 5 years from now or will it be 110 degrees every day for 10 months of the year with hurricanes like harvey happening every year by 2043
I know. If I had a choice I'd live within walking/riding distance of my job. But that is just not possible or affordable.
This is not the mindset we need. If you're young (50 and under), start taking action. Live closer to work. Go vegan a few days a week. Use mass transit instead of driving everywhere. If you're looking to buy a car, get an EV.
But most importantly, make this the highest priority of your life. Push your elected officials on this daily or weekly. Or run for office and make your highest priority.
Instead of tearing it down in the '30s we thought capitalism could be reformed
Well I just throwing it out there!
I don't see governments solving the problem. I think people could solve it via the internet and working together but I don't see that happening either. But people working together is probably more likely than governments working together to save us.
I wanted to say that if you start to have another "better" lifestyle people tend to adapt that. You can see this clearly in recent food trends or other health trends.
It's better than nothing but it's going to have to involve a quick tear down of those industries. Government won't do it because they can never harm the almighty dollar.
Jesus christ people are overly dramatic in this thread. Yeah, there will be hard changes, but this constant doom peddling is dumb.
Nothing that happens to the earth will make it less livable than space. If a billionaire could survive in space, they could survive on earth. It's the desperately poor in developing nations that will be screwed in the next 2-3 generations.
I think Stargate SG1 addressed this with the Asgard's. Technically immortal, they got to a point where they lost the ability to reproduce due to overcloning and they keep body swapping was just a prolonged death so they just outright killed themselves(blew up their homeworld). I was surprised that they didn't even try to ascend like the ancients.
I'm wondering when are we going to focus on cultivating on other local planets in our system. This is a good time for everyone on earth to work on this project.
We're nowhere near being able to survive in space long term. They'd die a slow death of bone degradation and cancer.
Unfortunately, the people most directly responsible won't be around to see the worst effects. But I do wonder: if Exxon's execs hadn't decided to fund climate change denial, would it have happened anyway? That's hardly the first public health crisis where money funded a misinformation campaign. For example, leaded gasoline or tobacco and lung cancer.
People are all too eager to hear that a big problem is not a problem. This may have been inevitable. That's not to say I still wouldn't like to see a lot of execs and politicians face the consequences, before we all do.
It's better than nothing but you'd need lots of money in addition to lots of people to help speed things up in the positive direction as quickly as it'd need to be sped up to even come close to minimizing the damage (because even the most Optimist person can't possibly still believe reversing the damage is ever gonna fucking happen at this point, even in an alternate universe where we started doing good from This Instant on). Ideally we can do it, and it's more likely that it happens through us and not governments as you said, but it's still incredibly unlikely at best and we would benefit a lot from governments actually believing us a decade ago when it was necessary
Perhaps this thread would welcome the proclamation that the GOP is worse than ISIS and not be seen as hyperbole.
And yet they control the whole government...
And yet they control the whole government...
You do understand there are more environmental niches than just hot and cold?
This is evolution driven by changing environment. The potential merging of two previously separate species. I don't understand why you are denying this?
Could we boycott these companies?
Organize a global internet campaign to stop buying their products?
Or do they hold a monopoly on things we simply can't do without?
Edit: the list in the article is pretty much exclusively coal and oil companies. So that's my answer. We should have moved to nuclear and solar/wind when we had the chance.
Last edited:
What? Those things are hardly mutually exclusive. You can fight for structural change and you can do your best to slow down global warming by adapting your lifestyle. If you're not willing to lift a finger for a cause you champion online, then at least don't discourage others.
Did I say I'm not willing to change? I was simply highlighting how coming into the discussion on global emissions and needing world wide regulations to say "go vegan" is such a minor step.