|
ChairMaster posted:The planet's got an expiry date of a few hundred million years when the sun gets too hot for photosynthesis to work. Whether or not another intelligent species could do as well or better than we did is not an easy question to answer, seeing as we don't have anything to compare it to other than ourselves. It's unlikely that they'd have much of a fossil fuel reserve to jump off of, so who knows? Also, who cares? That's just science fiction distraction from real life. It's not important and never will be unless some alien species shows up some time soon and saves the world, but I'm not counting on it. Also we're probably not going to go extinct anyways, it's unlikely. I don't think that speculating about the nature of the Great Filter is a science fiction distraction from real life. In fact, I think it might be one of the greatest and most important philosophical questions of our present age. Please bear in mind that I'm not a frequent poster on D&D, just a compulsive lurker. I'm sorry if I may sound naive, but the views that I'm about to write are formed in response to the sentiments of most people who discuss politics here. I don't mean to claim that I have all the answers, or that my thoughts are the correct ones. But I think that recent events in politics have really informed a realignment of my thoughts, and I want to share them. It's a thought that has been forming in my mind for a while now. I'm just going to use your post as a launching-point. It takes the form of promoting a fundamental realignment of our priorities, and is informed by a perspective on time -- Deep Time -- that I picked up in my undergraduate years studying Earth and Planetary Science. It's this: I think we occupy a unique position in the history of our planet. We're the first sentient species that has been able to develop a kind of "perfect recipe" for creating a civilization that can extend beyond the boundaries of our survival framework. We developed metacognition, tool use, cooperative group behavior (eusociality) and language, which allowed a kind of positive-feedback cycle that brought us to the point where we find ourselves today. Many other species have some of the characteristics, but not all of them. Corvids, chimpanzees, dolphins, and elephants will never be able to understand that the world will someday be unable to support life, and cannot reorient their behavior towards the long-term survival of all earthly species. We can. This means that, uniquely, humans are capable -- if we can muster the political will -- of acting to protect not just our own existence, but the existence of multicellular life in the cosmos. The long-term unsustainability of the planet Earth's ecosystem vanishes before the possibility of a technological civilization capable of perpetuating it outside of the terrestrial gravity well. Let's look at it from a risk-management perspective. What we need to do is reorient our thinking towards the management of existential risks. Why? Because we cannot be assured that in the future a species will evolve that will have all the characteristics that we do. Logically, if we value the continued existence of life in the cosmos, we should therefore value our own existence. Along the same lines, we can't be assured that, should a major civilizational catastrophe bring down our present global civilization, a future human civilization will ever reach our present level of technological development. So one must conclude that we ought to value the state of our present global civilization and its technological, cultural, and philosophical endowment as well. All this is to say that I think that we should promote the philosophical value of perpetuating a future for multicellular life as long as thermodynamic potential gradients in the universe make it possible. If we realign our perspective to encompass the broad goal of life's continued existence as being the highest priority, I think that most of our most cherished progressive moral goals could easily be justified under the broader philosophy. Anyway, sorry to ramble, but I just wanted to get my thought out there, and I didn't know of a better thread to put it in, and was afraid of starting a new one entirely. 
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:16 |
|
|
French revolution style event wouldn't do much, Bolshevik style revolution but instead of industrialization it's decarbonization is closer to the mark of what we probably need.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
Speculating about the extinction of intelligent species is science fiction distraction from the potential collapse of civilisation and extinction of our species - this thread. Climate is completely hosed and the absolute best pie in the sky dream scenario is just arresting it from getting any worse, but if this depresses you the problem is actually in your head - also this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Speculating about the extinction of intelligent species is science fiction distraction from the potential collapse of civilisation and extinction of our species - this thread. Extinction isn't likely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 00:34
|
|
|
Does anyone have experience with buying carbon offsets? I don't mean in the sense of 'will carbon offsetting save us' - I'm aware it won't - but rather, is it of any use for me as an individual to purchase them and if so how best to go about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
ModernMajorGeneral posted:Does anyone have experience with buying carbon offsets? I don't mean in the sense of 'will carbon offsetting save us' - I'm aware it won't - but rather, is it of any use for me as an individual to purchase them and if so how best to go about it. They’re mostly worthless, spend your money on community resilience or political action. Throwing a block party and handing out flyers would be more useful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 00:40
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Speculating about the extinction of intelligent species is science fiction distraction from the potential collapse of civilisation and extinction of our species - this thread. Because none of that stuff is real and is the result of people that don't want to talk about the real predicted effects of climate change because the real predictions are bleak and unfun in a regular way instead of being a quirky disaster movie where you or I get to be the protagonist and have a fun adventure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 00:41
|
|
|
So do we have any ways of reversing any of this? Even if we're a ways out? I keep hearing about CO2 scrubbers, but basically they'd cost more CO2 to make than they'd wind up scrubbing. Supposedly advances are being made though to make them be a net positive and potentially economically feasible. I read something about shooting reflective "glitter" into the atmosphere, but that sounded pretty damned sci-fi. What hopes do we have?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 00:42
|
|
|
Yeah I'll admit absolute extinction isn't likely but if we're reduced to a handful of inbred cannibals for the next few aeons it may as well be the same thing as all of our progress and knowledge and waste will be for naught. What I'm getting at is:quote:Whether or not another intelligent species could do as well or better than we did is not an easy question to answer, seeing as we don't have anything to compare it to other than ourselves. It's unlikely that they'd have much of a fossil fuel reserve to jump off of, so who knows? Also, who cares? What if the hypothetical intelligent species is our descendants who know nothing of history or the calamity from before and are handicapped right from the start? The little 'who cares?' at the end is the best part, effectively the FYGM that put us here but on a time scale and breadth never achieved before. Also, people who complain about sci-fi fundamentally misunderstand what sci-fi is for. It's not a distraction, it's a mirror you knob. The Road: bullshit distraction, not at all bleak and unfun in a regular way. Slavvy fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Oct 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:Extinction isn't likely. But death is certain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:IPCC's SR15 put us on a 3-4C range under current Paris Accord commitments. This is an astoundingly horrific finding.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
Saxophone posted:So do we have any ways of reversing any of this? Even if we're a ways out? We have many technologically possible pathways to limiting our harm to between "2100 is no better than 2020" and "2100 is a little bit worse than 2020" the question is, will we do them in time? +1.5C peak is still physically possible as a goal, but increasingly unlikely as a realistic one. But even +2-4C peak isn't the end of civilization, and that's still possible but it requires the greatest coordinated change in human history. We need to reduce emissions by 45% by 2030 to hit +1.5C, by 20% to hit +2C: quote:C1. In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range). For limiting global warming to below 2°C11 CO2 emissions are projected to decline by about 20% by 2030 in most pathways (10–30% interquartile range) and reach net zero around 2075 (2065–2080 interquartile range). Non-CO2 emissions in pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C show deep reductions that are similar to those in pathways limiting warming to 2°C. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.3a) {2.1, 2.3, Table 2.4} Here's some of the modeled pathways  (AFOLU = Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. BECSS = Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage. CDR = Carbon Dioxide Removal.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
What about reversals? Or is that just technologically impossible? If we make it out of 2020 with better leaders and politicians I could see a coordinated attempt at this. Especially if climate shift starts presenting itself in ways that common yokels start physically noticing. That said, that may be a point too far over the line. I suppose I'm just looking for a bit of hope at this point and trying to see where I could make a difference.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 01:02
|
|
|
Isn't BECCS a total red herring currently? My understanding is that it's mostly a deus ex machina plugged into the models to show how things could be better with little change because this tech that doesn't exist, hasn't been show to scale, and still would still produce other massive externalities will save us all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 01:05
|
|
|
Saxophone posted:What about reversals? Or is that just technologically impossible? reversals are 100% impossible within the current epoch, even if some aspiring misanthrope rubbed a magic lamp and made all of humanity drop dead it would just make climate change rapidly become worse due to the sudden absence of global dimming we're on a runaway train right now, and it would take an impossible amount of (political) effort just to pull the brake, let alone drag it back the way it came
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
Saxophone posted:What about reversals? Or is that just technologically impossible? I by what you mean as “reversals” is what I was calling the best case scenarios up thread. In the best scenario physically possible now, coral reefs might die back substantially by 2030-2050 but begin a recovery by 2100. That’s the kind of “reversal” available to us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
on the one hand its great that the ipcc report is out there driving some greater urgency on the other hand its depressing to watch all the newbs show up in this thread and just re-enact a sortof group-exercise in copy/pasting the exact same poo poo from any given 3 pages of this 400+ page thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 01:09
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Here's some of the modeled pathways IMO pathways P3+P4 are totally ridiculous. Gigaton-scale sequestration is already pretty pie-in-the-sky and probably unlikely to ever happen, 20 GtCO2/year is just completely out there. Why not propose a pathway with 200GtCO2/year sequestration? Not really arguing with your points, just complaining about the magical thinking needed to take some of these mitigation schemes seriously.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 01:12
|
|
|
ATP_Power posted:Isn't BECCS a total red herring currently? My understanding is that it's mostly a deus ex machina plugged into the models to show how things could be better with little change because this tech that doesn't exist, hasn't been show to scale, and still would still produce other massive externalities will save us all. it seems the land use would be more of an issue: chp2 posted:CDR deployed at scale is unproven and reliance on such technology is a major risk in the ability to limit warming to 1.5°C. CDR is needed less in pathways with particularly strong emphasis on energy chp4 posted:The average amount of BECCS in these pathways requires 25–46% of arable and permanent crop area in 2100. Land area estimates differ in scale and are not necessarily a good indicator of competition with, e.g., food production, because requiring a smaller land area for the same potential could indicate that high-productivity agricultural land is used . In general, the literature shows low agreement on the availability of land (Fritz et al., 2011); see (Erb et al., 2016b) for recent advances. Productivity, food production and competition with other ecosystem services and land use by local communities are important factors for the design of regulation. These potentials and trade-offs are not homogenously distributed across regions. However, (Robledo-Abad et al., 2017) find that regions with higher potentials are understudied, given their potential contribution. Researchers have expressed the need to complement global assessments with regional, geographically explicit bottom-up studies of biomass potentials and socio-economic impacts StabbinHobo posted:on the one hand its great that the ipcc report is out there driving some greater urgency At least we have updated numbers! Nocturtle posted:IMO pathways P3+P4 are totally ridiculous. Gigaton-scale sequestration is already pretty pie-in-the-sky and probably unlikely to ever happen, 20 GtCO2/year is just completely out there. Why not propose a pathway with 200GtCO2/year sequestration? Well, using 40% of arable land on BECSS sounds as reasonable as anything else at this point, but yeah the pathways centered on efficiency are obviously preferable 
Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Oct 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 01:15
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:on the one hand its great that the ipcc report is out there driving some greater urgency I assume you're busy overthrowing the government? Seeing as it's literally impossible to do anything about it while capitalism still exists an 400+ pages haven't yielded any alternatives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 01:15
|
|
|
basically what i'm saying is we need to make air pollution that contributes to climate change the moral equivalent of loving a dog, or rape.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 01:30
|
|
|
Dunno seems like building a huge fuckoff guillotine would be a lot easier, and you can make them out of scraps so it'd be carbon neutral.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 01:32
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:TED Talk: What if by destroying the climate, we reset the simulation into a magic fantasy world where for some reason I am the strongest character. A young forum-poster dies, only to be offered a chance by the gods to come back alive, only backwards through time to the dawn of the industrial revolution, armed only with a cell phone that magically never drains and has connection to the internet Yeah you could probably get 13 episodes out of that
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 01:47
|
|
|
how did the abolitionist movement gain a foothold in the north's consciousness before the american civil war? i'm not asking this rhetorically or smugly, but from a place of ignorance. i think a lot of our collective denial as a society comes from fear of being conn'd or percieved* as an idiot. all of us have become richard nixon. is this, or any other example of a public movement that resulted in a net positive for society, worth examining as a way to engage the public regarding climate change? obviously we're in a different media landscape, and society is so incredibly different. but come on, let's not resign to the hell planet scenario.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 01:51
|
|
|
im depressed lol posted:how did the abolitionist movement gain a foothold in the north's consciousness before the american civil war? They used all of the same tools activists use today. Protests, boycotts, articles, and even memes (pamphlets/songs/etc). The dollop has a good episode of one such example: http://thedollop.libsyn.com/338-abolitionist-benjamin-lay
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 01:58
|
|
|
^ Good Q. I don't have an answer. But I feel part of the answer would be from looking back to when information was decentralized as well as the 20th century.StabbinHobo posted:on the other hand its depressing to watch all the newbs show up in this thread and just re-enact a sortof group-exercise in copy/pasting the exact same poo poo from any given 3 pages of this 400+ page thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
im depressed lol posted:there's an absolutely insane, onion parody of a ted talk about this Did you mean to post some other video? There are definitely super crazy proposals of pumping smoke into the air like the matrix or like building country sized orbital rings out of nanofibers that don't even exist but this seems like the most inoffensive video imaginable. It's like, the summary is "using proven 2018 technology we could remove 1 million tons of Co2 a year for 1000 dollars a ton and 300-500 MW of electricity, which is too much" then "the current next gen is likely to reduce that to 600 dollars a ton, which is also a lot" then "a specially designed natural gas power plant puts out enough heat to capture all the co2 it releases plus a small amount more under ideal conditions, and would reduce it's output significantly under non-ideal conditions" followed by saying that future stuff will bring the cost down but that it's not going to ever be cheap and it needs hard investment. Then ends with saying this isn't a "the answer" and wouldn't work to replace reduction of co2 and isn't a silver bullet but works as one more way to help reduce co2 when used with all the other ways. Like, of all the videos on stuff like this this seems like the absolute most normal one imaginable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Did you mean to post some other video? There are definitely super crazy proposals of pumping smoke into the air like the matrix or like building country sized orbital rings out of nanofibers that don't even exist but this seems like the most inoffensive video imaginable. no, that was the video i intended to post. Iron Twinkie posted:TED Talk: But what if... by destroying the climate, we reset the simulation into a magic fantasy world where for some reason I am the strongest character.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 02:27
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:poo poo as long as I'm posting here I may as well explain that Mad Max is not representative of the future, nor does anyone in this thread really envision a future that looks similar to it. I get what you're trying to say and it's true, but I'll be pedantic and add that some places will definitely go Mad Max 1 verging on 2 as various nations/regions fail.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
im depressed lol posted:no, that was the video i intended to post. Are you sure? It seemed like it contained absolutely zero controversial or abnormal claims. It's capstone claim is that investing as much money as the entire apollo project could capture 5% of the US carbon output if current technology can be improved dramatically. like there is other videos about carbon removal that are so so much more bonkers than anything this says. With this sticking basically to "this would be an extreme investment, and isn't very useful on it's own, but it does exist now if we want it" compared to a bunch of weird alien technology space projects a bunch of stuff tries to claim.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 02:40
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:I get what you're trying to say and it's true, but I'll be pedantic and add that some places will definitely go Mad Max 1 verging on 2 as various nations/regions fail. Mad Max 2 is the best one of the original trilogy, but most people who aren't big into the series think of 3 when they think "Mad Max". 1 is very likely in a lot of places, but most people haven't seen 1 anyways. freebooter posted:Why is it always Americans who assume their country is the only one with an immigration policy? You can't just up and move to New Zealand because you feel like it. Unless you plan to show up on a tourist visa, hide out in the back country and hope civilisation collapses before you get caught and deported. I'm not American, and I know perfectly well that NZ has immigration policy, which is like the main reason I went back to school to get a degree that can get me a job that can get me a work visa toward eventual permanent residence and citizenship. It's not a short term plan, but it's also perfectly possible to move to another country if you do your research and put in the time and effort, especially if you're white and you speak the same language they speak.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 02:46
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Are you sure? It seemed like it contained absolutely zero controversial or abnormal claims. It's capstone claim is that investing as much money as the entire apollo project could capture 5% of the US carbon output if current technology can be improved dramatically. it's a realistic, factual video and the science in it doesn't seem outlandish. the idea suggested is plausible. but please, step back a moment from your desire to be right. ok. big step back. are you ready? click this. im depressed lol posted:it's the world's most unbreakable taboo; polluting the environment senselessly to add more zeroes to various bank accounts. all this greed makes us sick. it's disgusting.... perverse.... filthy. if the whole point of civilization was to... senselessly pursue profits at all costs and pollute the planet for no purpose other than to add zeroes to a ledger.... this civilization should be condemned to its fate and is not worth saving. you can hear the scientists screaming and yelping in pain. and it really sounds bad. so you design a massive filtration system to remove a percentage of the pollution in the air. but then you remember. IT'S NOT A REAL WORLD. Owlofcreamcheese posted:What are you talking about? Edit: You can feel the reader recoiling in horror over the lack of an understanding of humor. So you ask your fellow posters "is his brain so broken he can't understand humor, is he too lazy to click the quoted link above?". But even they can't parse whether he's joking or is just an idiot. So you call the mods, naturally. Because posting this stupid should obviously be a crime. im depressed lol fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Oct 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
im depressed lol posted:it's a realistic, factual video and the science in it doesn't seem outlandish. the idea suggested is plausible. What are you talking about?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 02:52
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:The little 'who cares?' at the end is the best part, effectively the FYGM that put us here but on a time scale and breadth never achieved before. If you really gave a poo poo about the future in the long term then you wouldn't have said this: quote:Yeah I'll admit absolute extinction isn't likely but if we're reduced to a handful of inbred cannibals for the next few aeons it may as well be the same thing The difference between all humans being dead and most humans being dead is a minimum 50 million years of evolutionary progress, and it's the difference between this asinine fantasy of "humanity going out into the stars to eventually become as gods" and "Game over for Earth, turns out humans didn't matter in the long run". High-minded fantasies about the future of life in the universe as we know it may be fun, but it's ultimately masturbation. It has nothing to do with real life science or politics in any meaningful way, unless you guys think that the key to fixing this is trying to teach philosophy to billions of people who don't give a poo poo and are more worried about where their next meal is going to come from. Also humans are probably not going to go extinct. I'm not saying this to be a dick, but this thread has been going for years and we've seen this exact same discussion go nowhere a dozen times. The future of life in the universe is not our concern, we are not gods or masters of even a single planet. We're a unique species in the midst of a crisis that will injure us on a large scale for a very long time. That is what this thread is ultimately about, and the more time people spend jerking off about human extinction scenarios that aren't going to happen the more annoying the thread gets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 02:58
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:If you really gave a poo poo about the future in the long term then you wouldn't have said this: What windmill are you tilting at here? I never said anything about humanity going out into the stars or whatever, I was meaning that if some small sliver of us survive they'll still be hosed because of depleted resources and ecological catastrophe leading to an uninhabitable world than they haven't got the means to fix. If the only concern is the continuation of the homo sapiens genome, then climate change doesn't matter at all because a few are guaranteed to make it so why are we worried?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 03:34
|
|
|
Rip Testes posted:I have to be honest knowing that life is short and all this is in the pipe I am considering accelerating my personal timelines. Not coming from a climate news standpoint, my wife the other day was mentioning moving back to her homeland with what we have which would be enough to retire with given the circumstances of her place of origin. I've been reticent to fully consider it due to the lack of healthcare there, but maybe that's less an issue. Retire to the boondock mountains of a foreign land away from this thread, the news and a large part of modern technological life. My mentality may improve, have more time with family, definitely have less of a carbon footprint and there could be a chance that the vicissitudes of climate change in that region and personal health work out in the long run. Go for it but make sure your kid knows how to fend for themselves (live off the land, basic medicine, etc) and use guns. I'm not joking. It sounds like a bad joke about baby boomer preppers but honestly if poo poo goes sideways then they'll need it. Saxophone posted:So do we have any ways of reversing any of this? Even if we're a ways out? No. All the CCS tech is decades away from being viable (which is to say, able to dump more carbon than the process produces), and that's without going into the various issues of land use and as yet unknown side effects. Any sort of geoengineering will have a 99% chance of backfiring or causing some sort of add-on effect that will gently caress things up even more. We cannot magic lamp our way out of this. Even if the tech somehow magically worked tomorrow or someone invented cold fusion or whatever, we're still frontloaded with enough CO2 to get us to 1.5 degrees celsius. It's an impossibly deep hole to dig out of and most of the world is committed to going in the opposite direction because FYGM. I stopped reading this thread a while back because the constant cycle of topics (extinction, collapse, random shitposters making specious claims) got boring and damaging to my mental state. Sucks that what brings me back is basically a confirmation of what every professor I ever had who studied climate has worried about for decades. The IPCC put conservative estimates and rosy projections in the reports for the last decade and half in an attempt to placate politicians and prod them towards proactive measures, now they're ringing the alarm at the worst possible time. Honestly the only outcome of this report that I can see being feasible is the current US government doubles down on the "Fortress America" crap and things get worse for everyone, everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 03:42
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:What windmill are you tilting at here? I never said anything about humanity going out into the stars or whatever, I was meaning that if some small sliver of us survive they'll still be hosed because of depleted resources and ecological catastrophe leading to an uninhabitable world than they haven't got the means to fix. If the only concern is the continuation of the homo sapiens genome, then climate change doesn't matter at all because a few are guaranteed to make it so why are we worried? It seems you've a fundamental misunderstanding of the effects of climate change. The skies will not darken and evil clouds of sentient blood-mist will not come and feast upon our bodies, we will not be swallowed up by the oceans as a punishment for our ecological sins, the planet will not suddenly stop spinning and send us rocketing off into the nearest wall or mountain or directly into space by virtue of our inertia. Nuclear war itself will not render our planet uninhabitable. There's no reason that after a thousand years or so of dark ages that whatever remains of humanity could not pick up the pieces and start again. What exactly is the future of humanity that we're supposed to be worried about to such a degree that it matters more than the lives of 7 billion people currently inhabiting the planet? If you're not one of these people who's crying about our lost potential and our wasted opportunity to spread out throughout the universe then what exactly is the purpose of this ridiculous sci-fi fantasy conversation that we're doomed to have every couple dozen pages?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 03:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:16 |
|
|
jeez i went back and checked its not only that this thread is nearing 400 pages of the same few conversational loops but that this thread was created when the last thread quote "descended into people either succumbing to despair, or rehashing them same old arguments over and over." by page 260 THAT WAS IN 2015 oh man this is really fn depressing
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 04:03
|
|