|
Evil_Greven posted:Couple of things I came across today... So. hosed. 
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 02:16 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Please explain how if humanity would survive if everyone followed the advice. That's why its bad advice for the future of the human race. I get that it really boils down to "those dirty poors shouldn't reproduce," but that's not the same advice. It's pretty loving clear what he meant if you're not being an autist about it. First world residents (i.e. virtually everybody reading this thread) contribute immensely more to climate change than residents of the third world. Thus the fewer first world children born means fewer first world people using tons of resources. Obviously not all human beings are going to stop having children, creating an extinction event. But that should have been loving obvious, friend. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
I didn't realize that people would feel so personally offended by the mere fact that having children contributes to climate change. Personally, looking forward at all of the poo poo that is going to go down in 60-80 years makes me lean pretty hard toward the "don't bring a child into that world, that world will be hellish" camp. What, do you people feel like your lives are worth less if you don't personally reproduce?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Zombie #246 posted:Okay but what if the kid you have is the one that leads the eco-revolution, that seems like a pretty good carbon negative impact And that child's name was John Conner.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Instead of maybe thinking about having fewer children as a slightly more pro-active approach to reducing climate impact let's not do that and just wait 100 years when India will be completely unable to feed itself, most of the population of Bangladesh will become climate refugees, and agriculture in general will be in steep decline across the global south. Shave a couple of billion humans off the rolls with zero effort!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:The problem with the "stop having kids" argument is that it's basically a suggestion to enter a genetic prisoner's dilemma on a global scale. Even if you yourself decide not to have kids, many people won't, and in the long run their genes will survive while yours will perish. Who gives a poo poo? e: I mean seriously, why should I care if my genes perish? Doubly why should I care if my genes perish as part of a choice I make to make the world slightly better for generations to come? The only people who truly, truly get upset by the thought of their "bloodline" or whatever disappearing are egomaniacs. ex2: or 
How are u fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Mar 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Instead of literal genes think of cultural knowledge - if leftists* (for example) collectively decide to stop having kids, then in a few decades there aren't any more leftists. Broad, over-arching concepts such as "leftism" and "environmentalism" are not so obscure that we need to worry about them dying out if potential parents don't have kids to pass them on to. I mean really, the children of tomorrow are going to be concerned with leftist thought and certainly environmentalism because that's the world they're going to inherit. Staggering income inequality and a seriously hosed up planet, you'd better believe they'll be environmentalists to a man.  what if environmentalists can't pass their secret tribal knowledge to the next generation???  e: god knows I wasn't taught anything like leftist thought or environmentalism from my parents. I was raised evangelical christian. I discovered that poo poo on my own, as a product of my environment. How are u fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Mar 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
If we start blood sacrificing people we can pump our Growth Dominion, and perhaps if we claim the Throne of Fortune we can add some Luck to it. Climate Change solved!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
You mention insurance which is pretty interesting, because in the US it's Federal flood insurance that allows these loving morons to keep building on the seashore and then rebuilding every time their god drat houses and condos get hosed to death by a mega-storm. The Free Market in this case has been propped up by the lack of political will to face facts. I can't see this changing any time in the next decade, so that idiotic Florida building boom is going to continue until it all ends in hilarious, awful, eminently avoidable tragedy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Crosspost from the US Politics thread: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/18032015/fema-states-no-climate-planning-no-money quote:The Federal Emergency Management Agency is making it tougher for governors to deny man-made climate change. Starting next year, the agency will approve disaster preparedness funds only for states whose governors approve hazard mitigation plans that address climate change. Likelyhood of any of the poo poo-heads running the gulf states will change their minds because of this? Probably very low. But I feel its a step in the right direction to start actually acting like the science question is over, and that mitigation must be based on reality and not politics.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
They responded to the Pentagon saying "Climate Change is a real issue and the preeminent threat of the 21st century" by putting language in the Defense budget disallowing money to be spent on climate change related research. So yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
bartlebyshop posted:I think my favorite part is cutting funding for research into solar/wind/regular nukes and directing that money to fusion! I mean, to be fair, if we cracked the fusion egg tomorrow and made it commercially viable within five years a whole lot of our problems would be solved. Guess what I mean is that conservative climate change deniers are idiots through and through, but fusion will be the future, whether its in the next 10 (lol), 50, or 100 years.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
bartlebyshop posted:Sure, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single scientist willing to bet we can solve fusion before 2-4C hits. I'm fine with blue sky research like fusion but not as a "gently caress you" to practical solutions to current problems. I would have no problem with bumping DoE's fusion budget if they also increased the renewables budget too. Yeah definitely, I agree completely.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Worst thing about climate change deniers is that they won't be around to see the poo poo really hit the fan. Rather, their grandchildren will. e: which is why I won't be having children in order to do the single most impactful thing I can to combat increasing emissions and energy usage  
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:How much carbon in the air is needed to choke humanity to death? How ever much this ends up being: let's double it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Save the Earth, eat your children.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
So in other news our good friends in the energy extraction industry are now going to attempt to convince the loving Pope that climate change isn't real in order to prevent him from framing emissions reductions as a moral imperative when he addresses the UN later this year. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/24/heartland-institute-koch-pope-francis-lobbying-climate-change-global-warming quote:A US activist group that has received funding from energy companies and the foundation controlled by conservative activist Charles Koch is trying to persuade the Vatican that “there is no global warming crisis” ahead of an environmental statement by Pope Francis this summer that is expected to call for strong action to combat climate change. These people are loving scumbags.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Slightly on topic: No way that'd ever hold up in court, but it just shows out truly committed Conservatives are to not acknowledging anything that runs afoul of their worldview (or threatens their donors' profits).
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Adding on to this, David Brooks over at Vox would like to remind us exactly how screwed we are. (Hint: scientists are lying to you to make you feel better) I think Brooks is onto something here. We really, as a society and as a species, just are not capable of talking about the apocalyptic disasters that are coming as a result of climate change. In a mere matter of decades, probably like 50-70 years we are going to see hundreds of millions of poor people without food, water, or anything to lose. The world is going to change, and change in a big way. But we can't talk about that, we've got next quarter's profits to hit.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:What makes you think this is not the current state of affairs? Yeah no poo poo it is the current state of affairs. Are you unable to understand that it is going to become worse? India in particular just looks like it is going to be ultra-hosed. I can't even imagine what that part of the world is going to look like in 60 years.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
James The 1st posted:I seriously don't understand how people deny the 97% consensus. Seems like to me it's saying "hey, all these research papers that have been vetted for errors are all wrong because evil scientist conspiracy! I know more than all these scientists because Watts told me so!" Every dang person that I talk to that believes the consensus is fake goes to the conspiracy theory. The Green Energy Lobby has bribed all of the scientists so that they can get kickbacks and pork-barrel spending from Liberal government. My tax dollars are being stolen by Liberals.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
I just took an international flight and took the opportunity to watch the movie Kingsmen: The Secret Service, starring Colin Firth and Samuel L. Jackson. I think perhaps Samuel L. Jackson had the right idea in that movie. Also don't have children. How are u fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
Pinball posted:So, other than becoming vegan or vegetarian, what can a regular person do to help slow climate change? Not have children? If, as the OP says, we are far beyond saving, how do we come to terms with that? Got to be honest, it's hard not to become paralyzed by anxiety when looking at just how incredibly screwed we are. (And I don't have much hope that the upcoming summit will do much.) Don't have a child. Do your best to be eco-conscious and all that jazz, but the greatest two things you can do to have an impact as a first world citizen is 1) vote always and be vocal as poo poo to your congresscritter about your views and 2) don't have any children.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:For any of you keeping score at home, Av027 is not only unequivocally correct, but also one of the most on-point posters in the whole thread. The point he is making about a necessary reduction in the first world standard of living is one that nearly all of the folks touting political solutions in this thread completely fail to address, and it just happens to be one of the key reasons why all this ecological breakdown is happening. Until people are willing to give up all their fancy things (which, coincidentally, actually don't make any of us happier, despite what you may believe), none of this is going to get much better. gently caress the 3rd world, I'm not giving up my air conditioning and internet and xbox.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
I would not be surprised at all to see more auto manufacturers outed as doing similar things in the coming months. Volkswagen is in some deep poo poo now, this story has legs and will continue to be relevant in a world that's increasingly waking up to the terrible danger of climate change. Also, emissions testing is going to be scrutinized a poo poo lot more from now on.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:50% of Miami is now slated by 2035. I remember reading this article and it is one of the things that caused me to start seriously thinking about climate change and get involved with CC advocacy. I try to tell people about how loving serious and real and insane the effects of climate change are going to be but people just don't want to think about it. The thought of an entire city, an entire chunk of a State (south Florida) being rendered basically entirely uninhabitable is just too much for some people to process. It's crazy and disaster-movie sounding and unfortunately it is 100% real. Only wish I weren't going to be dead before it happens so I can say I loving told you so.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The realist in me says that the human race can probably figure something out and pull through it. We can pull it off. The issue is that it will involve a poo poo load of blood, death, and misery if we do. The wealthy and powerful like business as usual because the world going to poo poo won't hurt them that much. The rest of us, though, are going to have serious issues. To be honest I expect more violent revolution to be happening over the next several decades. If memory serves a lot of the violence and rebellion in the Middle East had food insecurity as a major component. Look at America, too; so many people are struggling to afford enough food that it's contributing to social unrest. See what's happening in Syria? Massive, ongoing drought brought on by climate change destroyed the farming livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of rural Syrians, sending them streaming into the cities looking for relief, causing overcrowding, unemployment, straining weak social services to the breaking point, and leaving tens of thousands of men unable to provide basic food and shelter for their families. Climate change alone is not what caused the hell that is Syria today, but it played a large roll in setting the scene just right for it to happen. Things are only going to get worse. Much, much worse. This is going to happen on a global scale.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
A seawall ain't gonna do poo poo to save South Florida. Especially hilarious considering I saw some article on insane housing prices in the big cities (London, NYC, San Fran, Vancouver) predicting that Miami was the next new hot thing. Enjoy that poo poo in 60 years you fuckers.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:People who are after the "next new hot thing" don't care about a 60-year timeframe. They're typically looking to buy, sit on it for a few years and flip. I understand that. It is just crazy reading about the insane building boom going on in Miami right now when there is absolutely no question that in less than a century that part of the world is going to be essentially uninhabitable on a scale larger than say a couple of swamp huts.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Yeah that last paragraph applies to you if you're a 1st worlder. So many people in so many developing and poor countries are just utterly hosed. We are going to lose a billion (billions?) people before we find some sort of equilibrium. And who knows how long that will take.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
The kind of changes we need to make as a civilization in order to mitigate global warming are akin to the transition from pre to post industrialization. They are massive and revolutionary and will require a reworking of society in a way seen only twice before. I fully believe we will achieve it, but I don't see us doing it before a poo poo load of people are hosed and dead.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Progress cannot happen without heaps of bodies, apparently. Bodies aren't necessary for progress, it's just that we have our heads too far up our own asses right now to make the meaningful and necessary changes within a timeframe that will prevent a gently caress load of people dying down the road a few years.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Marijuana Nihilist posted:TO SPACE! Such a tired and stupid point of view.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:Newsflash: we've got no place else to go. We will go to the stars, citizen.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Technological development over the past 30 years or so has been primarily focused around communications and organization/coordination. Those are not as flashy as flying cars, but they are far from the sole domain of luxury goods and are still showing incredible amounts of development. Pretty much. We haven't invented the next washing machine (what a weird example) in the past 30 years, oh noes. Instead we've connected a couple of billion people to each other through the internet and smart phones. That's a pretty staggeringly huge achievement and nobody has any real idea of what kind of things will happen based off of an inter-connected humanity in the future. Sky is the limit, friends.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I guess that's not that impressive to me, considering the world was already connected via the telephone, and we already had an Internet-like thing 30 years ago. We just improved on it and gave more people access. poo poo, we had computer networks in 1969. Equivocating billions of people being "connected" by the telephone and billions of people being connected by the internet is Dumb As poo poo, sorry. Likewise comparing a computer network in 1969 that was only accessible by white computer techno-wizards in a lab in Palo Alto and only able to speak to a tiny group of a few dozen other computers across the nation to a fruit vendor or cattle herdsman in sub-Saharan Africa being able to log online and access and participate in the breadth and depth of human knowledge is also stupid as god drat poo poo. The changes to intra-human connectivity that have occurred over the past 20 years are entirely without precedent and nobody knows what they will lead to. Only a fool would downplay its significance or potential. How are u fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Oct 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Space flight is different than communications technology. In the 1959 Richard Feynman gave a lecture (check it out on youtube) in which he explained the specific ways that computers would become smaller and more efficient. He reviewed how lithography would enable integrated circuits to be created at smaller and smaller scales and defined the limits of computers in terms of commonly known physical laws. You will find no similar lecture regarding spaceflight because the commonly known physical laws show that we cannot ever visit far off galaxies in any reasonable human timeframe. It is such a simple equation of time, mass, and energy, that no serious scientist advocates space colonization as a cure for any modern problem. Not overpopulation, not global warming, not food shortages, not resource shortages. Nobody in this thread is actually advocating for space colonization as a solution to taking action on climate change here and now, today. However, you can only take so much of "YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT SPACE THERE ARE PROBLEMS ON EARTH!!!  " morons before you have to tell them to gently caress off.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Global warming has to be considered in the philosophical context of unbounded growth. Historically we have grown and believed the idea that we will always grow. This manifest destiny mode of thinking must now be extinguished as we push past the limits of earths sustainable limits. While spaceflight might not be thought of as a solution to *global warming* by this thread it is absolutely considered as mechanism to allow infinite growth of the human race by people in this thread. I absolutely agree that infinite growth has been a terrible idea for our civilization for the past couple hundred years, obviously. Infinite growth, however, is only a problem when you are limited to a confined space, such as a planet. Outside of this planet there is infinite space, so I see no reason not to have infinite growth out there. You just have to recognize that there are limits to growth within certain confines and once you hit those limits you have to move onward and outward. Even if we can't make it to other stars our own solar system has enough resources to sustain infinite growth basically forever. e: there's over 150 million asteroids in the solar system oh no we will run out in like 100,000 years what's even the point we should never leave our god-given rock 
How are u fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Oct 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Marijuana Nihilist posted:Haha sorry buddy but when someone says something ridiculous, people are going to laugh at that person. And the idea of using space travel to achieve infinite growth of humanity is inherently funny. You are terrible at this.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 02:16 |
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:
There are basically infinite resources sitting in our solar system, waiting to be used, friend. e:vvvv one could say much the same about your mom vvvvv 
How are u fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Oct 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2015 21:33
|
|