(Thread IKs:
Stereotype)
|
I am not part of the problem unlike you humans that generate massive amounts of garbage and emissions by existing. I am a blind cave slug that floats in a pool my entire life. We got starlink last year.
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 20:02 |
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:There's a ton every individual can do. And individual action informs societal action. Saying "there's nothing you can do" is just a way of making yourself feel better about being part of the problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 00:44
|
|
|
It's true! Even you can be part of the solution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 00:46
|
|
|
Mayor Dave posted:Grief isn't an excuse to do nothing but I think it's a normal and healthy response to daily news like this there it is, that's the Good poo poo 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 00:51
|
|
|
I have no problem being a dissenting opinion when y'all are just repeating memes straight from the liberals over at r/collapse. The human response to covid and the human response to climate change are not comparable. One is a virus with a less than 2% mortality rate disproportionately affecting the sick, elderly and obese. The other is the doom of multicellular life in the biosphere. There will come a time when climate change is undeniable and humans will respond. It's been suggested that at some point we will attempt to nuke the problem away. I wouldn't doubt it. Covid on the other hand could have always been disregarded if you checked the right set of boxes: fairly young, healthy, and isolated from those who are at risk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 00:51
|
|
|
sure, why not get rid of the largest native reservation in the us
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 00:52
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:It's true! Even you can be part of the solution. Maybe, but  also, can't be a part of something that doesn't exist (a solution)
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 00:53
|
|
|
Everyone can be part of a solution, such as
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 00:56
|
|
|
Comatoast posted:I have no problem being a dissenting opinion when y'all are just repeating memes straight from the liberals over at r/collapse. less than 2% mortality rate per infection
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 00:56
|
|
|
Deep Dish Fuckfest posted:well that means it was that bad at least once before so it's not a problem if it's that bad now lol it's only because we can't reliably date tree rings any earlier than 800 so we can't tell if things were ever this bad: quote:Williams studied soil moisture levels in the West — a box that includes California, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, most of Oregon and Idaho, much of New Mexico, western Colorado, northern Mexico, and the southwest corners of Montana and Texas — using modern measurements and tree rings for estimates that go back to the year 800. That’s about as far back as estimates can reliably go with tree rings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 00:56
|
|
|
Comatoast posted:I have no problem being a dissenting opinion when y'all are just repeating memes straight from the liberals over at r/collapse. There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 00:57
|
|
|
Comatoast posted:I have no problem being a dissenting opinion when y'all are just repeating memes straight from the liberals over at r/collapse. you do realize that the leading causes of death from climate change isn't going to be "woops it got too hot/cold here or death directly from a hurricane flood" and will 100% be "whoops, everywhere is at war now because there is no more oil/food/clean water", right? Because the second is about the collapse of societies and economies, and its whats gonna kill most of us longterm. COVID 100% proved we cannot even come close to addressing the failing nature of our systems and institutions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 01:02
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 01:13
|
|
|
Comatoast posted:There will come a time when climate change is undeniable and humans will respond. When it's undeniable, as in affecting important people, it's by far too late. This isn't a thing where you can just wait for the elite to finally tap out and they open their money hose and it's all better in a couple years, it is possible to do permanent damage that humans cannot fix. It's also undeniable right this minute, with the data and models we already have. The can will continue to get kicked and there will never be a "this is undeniable" moment good enough to justify actual change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 01:14
|
|
|
Comatoast posted:I have no problem being a dissenting opinion when y'all are just repeating memes straight from the liberals over at r/collapse. Syq please
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 01:14
|
|
|
cant wait for cannibalism to be in again
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 01:15
|
|
|
Enfys posted:lol it's only because we can't reliably date tree rings any earlier than 800 so we can't tell if things were ever this bad: kinda curious about that now. why's that? just that there's not that many trees old enough around, or at some point most species start to kind of just stop growing, or what?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 01:15
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:less than 2% mortality rate per infection just playing russian roulette with 50 cylinders every 6-8 weeks, for years and years on end, nbd also 20 of the empty cylinders will gently caress up your brain heart t-cells or testicles, roll a 1d4
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 01:19
|
|
|
There will come a time when Jenga Change will be undeniable
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 01:28
|
|
|
Enfys posted:lol it's only because we can't reliably date tree rings any earlier than 800 so we can't tell if things were ever this bad: so the drought is so bad it’s basically just maxing out all our meters at 3.6 roentgen seems bad
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 01:28
|
|
|
Fly Molo posted:Yeah I don't think a "Give up and embrace the void" level of Climate Doomerism is helpful or wanted here. If we are taking the dome video at its word, there's nothing to be done but accept our demise. And frankly, that is neither useful discission nor helpful. We are not dead yet, nor are we likely, as a species, to fail anytime soon. So talking about the grieving process doesn't make a lot of sense because its not that final yet. lol they’re so… earnest!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 01:42
|
|
|
Fly Molo posted:just playing russian roulette with 50 cylinders every 6-8 weeks, for years and years on end, nbd No, dumbass. "...disproportionately affecting the sick, elderly and obese."
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 01:47
|
|
|
Comatoast posted:No, dumbass. you’re right, the odds of it killing you, specifically, in a single infection, get worse if you’re sick, old, or an admin. but lol millions of people are already dead or crippled, my dude, with no signs of slowing down. including shitloads of young healthy folks. how do you feel about early onset alzheimers, or multiple limb amputations, or having hot dog sized blood clots pulled out of your legs?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 01:57
|
|
|
With a population of 7.88 billion, covid is simply not related to the collapse of the biosphere. It never was. Any attempt to connect the two is just stupid, liberal politics. Similarly, there was never any chance that humans would muster an appropriate response to climate change. We've been over this. The chance to make change passed before most of us were even born. Comatoast has issued a correction as of 02:08 on Feb 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:03
|
|
|
Fly Molo posted:you’re right, the odds of it killing you, specifically, in a single infection, get worse if you’re sick, old, or an admin. That last bit sounds kinda satisfying in a pimple popping sorta way. Got a video?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:03
|
|
|
Comatoast posted:With a population of 7.88 billion, covid is simply not related to climate change. this is literally true…..covid is exacerbating a lot of really bad social problems and killing millions but climate change will probably make most of those social problems irrelevant and kill billions. however covid + climate change = a collapsing society where its intrinsically unsafe to congregate in groups, which is pretty amazing
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:10
|
|
|
^^lol yeah, maybe some people weren’t hit so hard, but it definitely wrecked plans for people to build local resiliency with their communities. plus covid takes millions of workers away from any climate projects and fucks up any public transportation plans. gotta love it when our unprecedented disasters synergize in perfect harmony The Wisest Moron posted:That last bit sounds kinda satisfying in a pimple popping sorta way. Got a video? sorry I don’t, just traumatized nurses venting about the horror of it in the covid thread don’t worry though, it’s mild lobotomy molo has issued a correction as of 02:16 on Feb 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/owasow/status/1493386242729254913
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:16
|
|
|
covid is not going anywhere so will simply be an additional little complication for all future climate based disruptions, as a treat
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:35
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:sure, why not get rid of the largest native reservation in the us good point 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:48
|
|
|
atelier morgan posted:covid is not going anywhere so will simply be an additional little complication for all future climate based disruptions, as a treat And Covid won’t even be the last new epidemic we get lol. Covid is the tutorial level.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:51
|
|
|
Raine posted:good point yea AZ is fine if you're in Prescott, Flagstaff and other areas. Phoenix, Yuma and Tucson are abominations against nature though
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:52
|
|
|
 Is that horizontal tick at the late Middle Ages what I think it is? Were Tamerlane, Genghis Khan, and their armies quantifiably the greatest environmentalists of all?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:56
|
|
|
are you all leaving water out for the animals?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:57
|
|
|
Raine posted:has d&d ever laid out their definition of a doomer I re-watched The Big Short the other day and had something of an epiphany about this and maybe why our society is so catastrophically bad at undervaluing risk and overvaluing optimism. When you 'go long' on a stock (or buy into/espouse/act in accordance with) the notion that something will be better in the future you are effectively making yourself a prophet of good news. This thing is good, and specifically, I (and you!) can benefit from my foresight on this subject. There are many ways that prophetic foresight manifests social value, like "buy these stocks and you'll make money" or "buy a house, you'll have a secure future" etc. but the basic premise remains the same: I know something is going to be good, and I can use that foreknowledge to profit myself by joining that venture and by sharing my insight so that others join as well. The social utility of people who display this behavior is obvious; you don't have much of a community or society without people banding together for common benefit. When you 'go short,' the premise is inverted: you are making yourself a prophet of bad news. This thing is bad, you shouldn't participate in it, you should bet against it, you should avoid it. The thing is, this isn't symmetrically valuable to being the bringer of good news. There's no immediately obvious way that others can profit from a forecast of a bad outcome the way that they can from a forecast of a good outcome. So what's the value of the bad news bringer to the community? If everyone listens to them, and the thing they are warning about doesn't happen/bad outcome avoided, the obvious value is zero. Even if they were clearly, obviously correct (and that often isn't the case), you don't profit by listening to the guy who says the '08 housing bond market is hosed or who says the barn being raised is going to collapse (I'll get to short-selling in a sec) and staying out of it, you simply avoided some potential hypothetical losses - but the people tied to those endeavors are pissed because you kept others from supporting you. If no one listens and the event happens, everyone is pissed at you anyway because you knew and didn't stop them. In the financial markets they had to specifically legalize short selling equities in the 30s because there was no incentive to step up and publicize even a very accurate forecast of bad news. Sure, you could avoid losses and maybe help others avoid losses, but avoiding losses is not a symmetrical incentive to gaining profits. Legalizing shorts helped balance that out by creating a financial vehicle for people to make huge piles of money if they were right (according to the market, in the future) that something was not going to work out. But there's something interesting about the way short sales are structured (partially fixed by options trading) that I think speaks to the asymmetry of optimism and pessimism in our society: if you go long, your gains are potentially unlimited but your losses are capped. If you go short, your gains are capped, but your losses are potentially unlimited. Betting a good outcome will occur is structurally less risky than betting a bad outcome will occur. Now apply the same exact lens to poo poo like COVID or climate change. Where is the social or economic penalty for being wrong over and over and over on the side of optimism? It's extremely limited. Now look at the other side: you err on the side of caution (or hell, don't even make any errors but just talk about it a little too much) and you're a doomer, a chicken little, etc. Bottom line is, you can prognosticate incorrectly many many more times on the side of optimism and get away with it because we are socially conditioned to treat 'going long' and being optimistic as both more inherently valuable and less risky than 'going short' and being pessimistic. And when you can consistently profit from pathological optimism without suffering the consequences of your rosy view of the world, regardless of the actual outcomes, you can leverage that profit into greater and greater influence on the rules of the game - you can protect your bets by making it harder to bet against you. The status quo of our economic system is pathological optimists making pathologically optimistic bets and hiring other pathological optimists to run the optimist betting machinery, do PR for the bets being made, and write that no one could have predicted a bad outcome in the charred aftermath when those bets fail. Pathological optimism at some point stops being the most profitable strategy and becomes the only acceptable strategy. So what's the value of any of this navel-gazing? In the 08 market collapse, the big optimistic betters almost all got cover from the government first to unwind their bets and then to sell off the crap they couldn't unwind when they turned out to be catastrophically wrong because our entire social and economic order is based on optimism being the default correct stance. Think about this for a second: we have baked in the correctness of pathological optimism into our culture to such a radical extent that even when we knew it was wrong to a degree that put the entire country's financial system in jeopardy of total collapse, the response was to pause the whole machine, change the rules, and make sure we protected the pathological (even fraudulently pathological) optimists from the consequences of their own terrible wagers before we started the machine up again. That was in a system where the outcomes could be rigged to protect the gamblers when they were on the 'right' side. So what the gently caress happens when the system is the global climate or a pandemic and you can't bully it or cheat it or rig it so that the pathological optimist bet always pays out the way our society needs it to? In this society, anyone who says "things are going to get worse" becomes the equivalent of a crazed doom-saying prophet on the street corner because our society is no longer equipped to deal with the possibility of optimism being wrong. The prediction of the possibility (or likelihood) of a bad outcome is automatically apocalyptic because we can no longer prepare for or fix bad outcomes. So don't be a doomer, you're really harshing everyone's vibe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 03:10
|
|
|
Mameluke posted:Is that horizontal tick at the late Middle Ages what I think it is? Were Tamerlane, Genghis Khan, and their armies quantifiably the greatest environmentalists of all? Yes, they killed so many people and destroyed so many farming communities that there was a mass forest regrowth and cooled the planet https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?199285/Genghis-Khan---the-greenest-invader-in-history the lesson here is [REDACTED]
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 03:15
|
|
|
I really, seriously love the argument that climate change and COVID responses aren't comparable because "covid doesn't affect me so who cares" Like just incredible levels of self-ownage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 03:21
|
|
|
No, its because it doesn't affect the vast majority of people. And we're overpopulated besides.
Comatoast has issued a correction as of 03:30 on Feb 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 03:27
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I really, seriously love the argument that climate change and COVID responses aren't comparable because "covid doesn't affect me so who cares" "What's covid going to do, maim me personally as it erodes the very social fabric on which I will come to rely more and more with the increasing burden of my disabilities?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 03:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 20:02 |
|
|
When climate change is affecting "the vast majority of people" we're already going to be at some kind of collapse-level end game. That's why this argument is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 03:28
|
|