|
Martin Random posted:We just lost Puerto Rico, the territory, the nation. We don't recognize it yet, but that island nation and others like it have just started an irrevocable, generational decline. Why, exactly. I mean, I can see your general point about islands in the path of terrible storms, but how exactly is Puerto Rico in particular boned, and how soon? I'm asking, because over here media isn't really covering the situation and the internet gets more useless for non-opinionated news every day.
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
FourLeaf posted:https://twitter.com/cushbomb/status/912718939620364288 Wow. Holy poo poo that's horrible. That's some of the most evil poo poo I've heard of from a ostensibly democratic first world nation.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 11:32
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Every time someone says it is too cost ineffective to recycle plastics, I'm reminded of this image of a bird corpse found at Midway Atoll, over 3000 miles away from mainland US. Yeah, these "cost analyses" frequently omit externalities, because why wouldn't they? As of right now, it would take legislation to make industry have to face the actual cost of doing business, and even that would be ineffective unless it was a globally harmonized effort. If businesses in the US for instance were made to actually pay back to society the damage they do (aka externalities), they'd just move everything to a country that doesn't require this. The globalized capitalist world simply will not allow it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/18/warning-of-ecological-armageddon-after-dramatic-plunge-in-insect-numbersWarning of 'ecological Armageddon' after dramatic plunge in insect numbers posted:The abundance of flying insects has plunged by three-quarters over the past 25 years, according to a new study that has shocked scientists. So yeah we're all gonna die.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:That and designer oxygen masks/tanks. Most of the remaining middle class will be spending their residual paychecks to make sure they and their children can consistently breathe outside, those who can't afford it will see greatly reduced life spans. Also, co2 poisoning makes it difficult to function/work, so if you "slip up" and run out of credit to a buy a new tank...well it is a long slide. That's pretty dystopian. I mean, gently caress, that's a bad future for humanity. Upside is a lot more people will be motivated to get off planet, because the one thing we can't deal with is literally poisoning our air so much we all get retarded. But hey, along those dystopian lines, that might be great for the ultra-wealthy/future dictator class to have a docile retarded population to control as opposed to an intelligent one.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I assume "get off planet" is some oblique reference to suicide because we'd have figured out how to tune our climate to our whims well before self-sufficient colonies that can support a suitably large population are feasible. I was more thinking along the lines of O'Neill cylinders or something, once you're out of the gravity well it doesn't make a lot of sense going back down one unless you have a very good reason. Kind of like The Expanse, minus Mars (because why the gently caress go to Mars). Remember, rich folks have a lot of money to waste and they loving own you and everyone you know. Why wouldn't they attempt this next when the New Zealand luxury refuge plan doesn't pan out?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
frytechnician posted:Man, do I suddenly feel really tired. It's probably the ever-increasing amounts of atmopsheric CO2  also, understatement of the century: BBC News: Record surge in atmospheric CO2 seen in 2016 posted:"Geological-wise, it is like an injection of a huge amount of heat," said Dr Tarasova.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
I'm surprised that not more people are freaking out over the fact that the air, that we all share and can't avoid existing in, is slowly being poisoned by ever-increasing CO2 emissions to the point that we will feel it and it will retard our cognitive ability.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Rime posted:15,000 scientists give catastrophic warning about the fate of the world in new ‘letter to humanity’ Well now. If that doesn't say "on the very brink of catastrophe" I don't know what does. VideoGameVet posted:The Fermi Paradox Solved! You joke, but that's actually a good point. Climate change might itself be a great filter, like an overfilled petri dish full of bacteria discovering that infinite expansion in a limited space will destroy you eventually.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2017 09:16
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I'll make the bold prediction here that 2020->2030 and 2030->2040 are gonna be somewhat like 2000->2010 or 1990->2000, i.e., pretty decent all in all. 2040->2100 might be anything from "Immortal Space King Elon Musk gifts everyone moon-mined butt cocaine for Xmas C (we had to add extra Xmasses to consume all of the neat stuff)" to "A bit worse than 2040 because Malthus eventually did catch up with us, somehow". I.e., in the first world, our main worry is still gonna be stupid politicians and what color to buy your iPhone in. It could be. There's also the chance that our current society is actually a lot less stable than we take for granted and a lot more susceptible to a cascade failiure such as a the bronze age collapse due to the complexity of our society and our utter dependance on logistics and international trade. We can speculate a lot back either way, but the real answer is that we don't know very much about the future, for better or worse. We do know that we need to address climate change really comprehensively and really soon to give us the best chance of avoiding the slow death of our advanced, golden-age society and/or straight up doomsday.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:That'd be the best outcome though since we need to cut emissions to zero and geoengineer. Which makes me wonder, outside of the realm of capitalist thought: If we are going to need (and we are) massive public works projects that sequester carbon/mitigate warming, what would that look like? Massive reforestation programs? A shift to intensive greenhouse farming for localized produce and conversion of traditional farmland to forest? Death to all cows? Every roof painted white? Mines filled with biomass, liquid biomass pumped into old oil wells? Complete restructuring of transport and energy (massive public transport reform, free and available public transport, outlawing of all emission-producing electricity production)? Or even all of the above? Then we are looking at one hell of a paradigm shift, because gently caress if any boomer will lend any political or actual capital towards anything like this.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2018 08:52
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:All of that also controlled sedimentary weathering, algaculture and seaweed / mangrove culture, possibly even deepwater biome management, the list goes on and on. Cool. I mean, I live in a socialized country so I'm fine with working on something like this for minimum wage because I'd be working towards literally saving humanity. It'd probably be the most hopeful thing I could possibly do with myself. But I don't think there's a lot of people out there who'd be willing to do the same, at least aged 40-45+. I mean in terms of manpower and resourced/industry if society was structured towards these efforts we would have a massive potential impact. But where the hell do you source the political will to set up these programs within the limits of democracy? I could see China doing this. Maybe. The US? No way in hell.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2018 08:59
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:I'd prefer answers from sane posters, thanks. I see Thug Lessons getting poo poo on a lot itt and from going back and reading his posts I don't really understand why that's necessary. I mean, I hardly agree with everything he's saying but a good portion of the posts are well reasoned and to my reading a good starting point for debate if anyone wants to disagree from an informed perspective. I enjoy reading informed rebuttals of his views, and while I'm significantly more concerned than he appears to be some of the things he posts are not incorrect. Or have I just lost my mind or something? What am I missing?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2018 14:04
|
|
|
TACD posted:Here's some straight–talking doom for you on this fine morning Tragedy of the commons and the prisoner's dilemma problem as they relate to climate change is likely to kill a majority of humans within the next couple hundred years, sure. Probably. At least I pretty much share his take on the situation. It's funny, because when the seldom occasion arises where I've tried to discuss these things with people the reaction is normally mixed between "wow climate change is kinda scary, someone should totally do something" and "who the hell are you to be preaching, I don't see you living in the forest like a hobo recycling pine cones so clearly you don't believe any of this and if you don't take extreme action I'll take none". I believe that mechanisms such as these are the ones that ultimately prevent us reacting to global warming fast enough and maintains the capitalist consumer society paradigm. That's a concrete, shared root cause there and it's a motherfucker of a problem to handle. Until someone finds a way to revolutionize our thinking, change the paradigm completely to adress those basic human psychological mechanics, there's no way we'll do anything significant in time for it to matter. It's not the flash heat but the slow boil that's going to cook this frog.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2018 09:36
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:I got into an argument the other day about what the net-negatives of surveillance capitalism (Google, Facebook, etc) actually are and one of the points I kept hammering down is the immense amounts of resources these institutions basically waste. Hundreds of billions dollars and some of the brightest minds of several generations are all being pivoted to: You are right, and that sentence there is extremely on the money. Within a consumption-oriented low regulation capitalist paradigm, there's no way to even begin to really tackle the problem. At the outset it would require actually and accurately pricing in "externalities" of doing business, to make businesses actually pay the cost of their exploitation. Any nation that did this while none others followed suit would cripple itself. The only way I can think of even approaching that issue would be massive and unified international government regulation. Essentially, a one world government completely immune to money influences and evershifting popular opinion would be what's required. That's not happening.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2018 10:38
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:You say that like cutting off the coffee supply wouldn't cause the Nordic Countries to descend into barbarism. This would probably end civilization as we know it north of the arctic circle.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2018 08:38
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:a shitposting troll and a sanctimoniousnessly ill informed douchebag are about to be attacked by a mod, you have one image macro, who do you goatse Can I shoot any of them? Anyway, is there like a meta thread for discussing discussions and something about the pointless effort of trying to convince other people? I feel that's pretty relevant to this thread, because as we've been shown time and time again it's loving impossible to get someone to change their mind if they are a certain subset of psychological profiles (extreme conservative, extreme religious, authoritarian etc.). I think it's incredibly useful to be able to identify the point where dialogue breaks down (when you are not going to convince the opposing party with good-faith argument and are not in a position where your good-faith arguments may sway an audience) and discussion becomes pointless. Whether it's due to bad faith actors (trolls, fundamentalists, fascist - all of the above who doesn't care about the content of dialogue just the expenditure of effort and the legitimacy participation grants), wilfull ignorance, distrust, faith in opposing authority figures or whatever, I think it's worth diagnosing these situations and coming up with alternatives. Traditionally, the alternative to dialogue in human history has been violence. Civilized nations have created an alternative system for dealing with the breakdown in dialogue and lack of resolution, which would be the court system. This relies on the "violence" of national power to force a solution by impartial arbitor. Obviously, this won't work on a global scale because there is no one-power global actor capable of creating and enforcing international law and judgements on environmental crimes. So, the traditional method of dialogue is out when it comes to climate change because there are too many dissenting voices and that just stalemates democratic resolution. These people can't be convinced and due to mass media/internet will be actively urged to vote against their own interest on this. This can be solved with demographic shifts, but we don't have time for that. It could be solved with a massive propaganda effort, but this isn't practically feasibly and is morally onerous. Courts won't solve it, because they don't exist in a way that will attack the climate change problem in any way but smaller (national enviromental protection laws, company liability for enviro-damage), and establishing such courts would need massive international popular assent (EU comes closest, but won't go far enough and hasn't the reach to impact the world overall). Violence won't solve it, because the world now has military power on the scale of nuclear holocaust at its disposal. Violence as always is a mistake. So what's left? The world is deadlocked in opposing interests, which is a damning indictment of national and global democracy. Where's the solution going to come from? Taking the US as an example, I can't see any kind of compromise being reached with Trump and his corrupt band of corporate overlords. Cingulate posted:So would I have thought, but then I waded into the climate change thread, where some seemingly think ant-doms value is not primarily instrumental (wrt their contribution to humanity's well-being), but ... intrinsic. I see your point, but I think equating religious fundies and people who post about some sort of cosmic karma thing going on anonymously on a dead gay comedy forum is a bit far fetched. I'll say this though: Yes, humans are the only thing that matters. If I could sacrifice 100% of the biomass of earth in exchange for humanity's continued existence and spreading out among the starts or whatever, I would take that bargain in a heartbeat. The value of humans as the only sentient species on the planet and possibly in the universe (for all we know) makes human value absolute both as a general concept and (though I'm hardly impartial in this) our value to ourselves. Of course, we're not there yet and that choice isn't a real choice we have to make. I agree that human suffering is more significant than any other suffering, but there's also a moral (or let's call it karmic) dimension in that humans are also the only creatures on earth with full agency. If there's a mess, we made it, and the consequences of transgressions (ignorant transgressions or not) falling on the transgressor is seemingly hard-wired into our innate sense of justice. With some exceptions. Don't cross your wires on this one. If you're talking about the former concept and everyone else is talking about the latter, both positions are understandable and have merit. Make sure you're discussing the same thing before concluding.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2018 10:09
|
|
|
Libluini posted:There are probably hundreds of sentient species on this planet, what are you... oh wait, you're one of those clowns who doesn't know the difference between sentient and sapient, my bad. Oh, well gently caress. I, as a non-native english speaker, appear to have written sentient when I meant sapient. How utterly unforgivable. Well, I guess you win now, or something? Good to know your seething misanthropy wouldn't allow you to in this completely make-believe situation sacrifice the current biomass of earth - which is 100% going to permanently die when the sun does and constitutes less than 1% of all life that has inhabited our planet since the formation of the solar system - in exchange for the survival of something that might be unique to the universe and may never arrive again, for all we know. It's a false and ridiculous choice, yes, which is why I selected that particular piece of extreme hyperbole to illustrate the point that was being discussed, but there's no way to refute that the only way any of the living things on this planet survives beyond some coming permanent complete extinction event is in some form through humans. Unless you're suggesting that life will inhabit earth indefinitely.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The heat across Northern Europe has been nuts for May, with historical records getting broken from Germany (which also beat its April record) and Poland in the south, to Svalbard in the north, and the UK in the west. Wasn't even just by a little bit here in Denmark, it was a full 1.2C. I saw some projections that the US might have been on its way to beat its own record too? Presumably they got their heat from the south, just like Northern Europe got Mediterranean heat? Looking forward to the year where the heat pushes all the way past us and into the Arctic instead. I know weather |= climate, but holy gently caress it's been completely surreal. An actual proper drought in May with an average 4,2 degrees above normal, which completely eradicated previous heat wave records from the previous 100 years. I know it's just an anomaly and that it doesn't mean anything, but it's still unsettling.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2018 09:26
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Yeah, there Ted talks about it and everything: gently caress this heatwave. There has been no rain for so loving long, there's an actual drought coming in one of the rainiest countries on earth (Norway). The local river is near on dry and the entire country is a tinderbox. We were looking at the possibility of a bad flood only two months ago during snow melt, and now farmers are looking at half crops this year - if that. Our electricity is hydro-electric, so that's not great. Month after month is showing historical record temperatures and the coming drought is already the worst on record this side of 1950. We're at the rather unheard of point soon where water shortages are going to be a concern. Summer rains are vastly delayed. Of course, it's a first world country and is well prepared for this deviant weather, but if things are going to start trending this way with any sort of regularity that's going to be not great. We've planned for massive precipitation, I don't think we planned for extended dry seasons. It just doesn't happen. Hopefully this is all a weird weather anomaly we won't see again for some time.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2018 09:49
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:I loving love Peter Watts, and yeah his reasons are exactly why I've lost the appetite for most sci-fi, though the genre at large is slowly catching up as the realities of our situation begin to sink in. I never even heard of Peter Watts before someone recommended Blindsight to me and yeah. He is a very good author. I find it morbidly amusing how much the doomsday economics thread keeps derailing(?) into climate change issues these days. Even this classic was linked: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html and I even found one of the true classics of the climate change debate Crowsbeak posted:Ah, once again why post? I mean if your energy use is apparently more then what the earth can use why are you on here? If this is your legit belief. Which I doubt as inherently Malthusians have little actual care for their fellow human beings. I mean it;s obvious you think so little of humanity. If any kind of climate change mitigation is going to depend on human consensus, we are utterly utterly hosed. But we already knew this, we're all posting itt after all. Maybe I should consider getting myself a farm?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2018 09:12
|
|
|
SlightlyMad posted:Some recent scientific results to add to the big picture: Oh word? There are previously undiscovered but kindasorta predicted feedback mechanisms that naturally exacerbate emissions when warming happens? Well poo poo. As I think has been talked about a lot previously itt, this really is the true danger of climate change and probably the thing we all should be most afraid of. We really do not know poo poo about what will happen as the world warms, but there's every indication that there are strong feedback mechanisms and they are going to increase if not multiply the damage we're doing from just our own emissions. The problem - surprise surprise - is a lot loving bigger than just our own emissions. The most frustrating thing for me (and the thing making me want to start a sustainable farm somewhere and give up my career in law) is that it is still, STILL loving impossible to talk to people about this problem. You either get the predictable "eh not my problem, you're exaggerating, we'll be fine here where we live, you're such a panic starter" or even the "oh well how serious can it be, you don't live as some sort of climate ascetic, you have a car and everything so who are you to talk" or people just go quiet if you start talking about even a fraction of the more depressing stuff from this thread. I mean if you can't even reach people to make them vote for the greenest alternatives and there's a whole cohort of baby boomer fucks who will never absolutely ever agree with you and vote with you whatever you say, I really feel like I might as well start planning for a slow collapse just in case things spiral downwards more quickly than we are expecting. It's not like we know fuckall about how the future is going to go and how fast except in the most general terms. It would probably make me breathe a bit easier, until we hit 1000 ppm at least.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2018 10:10
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:you can play the "truth is in the middle" cool-centrist-guy all you want, but if you have a car you're not one to talk. I'm not american and you're disingenuous.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2018 14:29
|
|
|
Gunshow Poophole posted:Very good in that it gives me the fortitude to sleep at night Conversely, how potentially effective could it be to replant and form artificial salt marshes/mangroves? Would this be possible as well as feasible?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2018 13:46
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Give women equal rights everywhere. Actually do this regardless. Also there is no moral, ethical or reasonable argument to be made against reducing emissions any and all ways, including following france's example and then everything else too. It provably works, and we need it. There is no «but the cost/but the exceptionalism/but it's not a magic bullet» argument, gently caress off with that poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
Preen Dog posted:Not sure if serious. I have some suggestions to rationalize inaction. This is a good post.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2018 07:36
|
|
|
In fact, put it in the OP as a list of poo poo this thread has already heard and doesn't need more of.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2018 08:11
|
|
|
I recently rewatched this talk and I still love it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI While I can't speak to the conclusions I do think it demonstrates both our lack of knowledge, the consequences of that lack of knowledge and how we have to shift our thinking entirely away from our current paradigm into actually taking care of the actual loving place we exist instead of exploiting it for frivolous luxuries. We can start with making it socially unacceptable to be considered wealthy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2018 11:14
|
|
|
Tuned in to a public broadcasting program on nuclear power yesterday on the state channel. Was pretty interesting. The question of the programme was "Considering climate change, why aren't we switching to nuclear power and how dangerous is it really?". They went to Chernobyl, examined that and Fukujima and Three Mile, interviewed the heads of the major environmental organisations and the best radiation scientists on the globe working with the UN and poo poo, even people who were on-site in Chernobyl. The conclusion was that nuclear power is likely the only way forward, it's the safest way to produce energy we know, it has almost no emissions, the environmentalists are complete disingenous bullshitters when it comes to nuclear power, we have solutions for every problem with nuclear power including long term waste storage ready to go. Also, some interesting facts: From what the best scientists from an aggregate of UN, national and international sources can figure, about 85-90 people died from the Chernobyl accident, about 9000 cases of thyroid cancer were caused and about 15 children died from that from a lack of medical care, zero people died from radiation from Fukijima and Three Mile, there is no evidence that can be found for otherwise statistically raised cancer risks or incidents of any form, nor birth defects or other damage from the Chernobyl accident. It just didn't do much damage at all if you disregard psychological damage, and all the crazy numbers that have been operated with (tens or hundreds of thousands dead) either include completely unrelated deaths or are mathematical/statistical assumptions based on the assumption that low-level radiation (as in not much more than background radiation) causes elevated cancer risk and death. Which, again, the actual investigating scientists have never been able to find any evidence of. All in all an interesting if slightly less than informative watch. All I was really left with was that nuclear is the solution, it also has an insane PR-problem and people (and particularly environmentalists) have completely lost perspective and are disingenously unreasonable when it comes to the question of nuclear power as a substitute for coal, oil and gas. Great. Not that it's any news to any of you, but we're basically going to stupid ourselves to death. It's very frustrating.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2018 08:20
|
|
|
Jonah Galtberg posted:getting all the industry and infrastructure going that is required for nuclear power in states that don't already have existing programmes will take decades, by which point it will be well and truly too late You mean the science program is wrong. Sure, but even if we pretend money is a real thing we need to be concerned about remind me again; how expensive is catastrophic climate change?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2018 11:11
|
|
|
Cakebaker posted:If nuclear is more expensive than renewable, why not just go for renewable? Is it the inconsistencies due to weather? Well, "they" are, there's never been more investment or faster growth in renewables than now. Unfortunately that only amounts to I don't know maybe 10% increase in capacity each year and nobody knows how long that is going to be sustained or if it can be ramped up without massive investment and time. 70% of all power investment over the last two years (I think) has been into renewables, and it's fair to assume we'd have to increase spending a huge amount over this to increase the rate of capacity growth. As of 2017 all sources of renewable energy account for around 18% of all power consumed. I don't know the relative rate of increase. From the above it's pretty simply that expanding renewables to cover the power production from coal, oil and gas isn't happening near quickly enough, might not ever start happening quickly enough and might for all we know be more expensive and more challenging (and more dangerous and more carbon emissive) than building out nuclear alternatives. There's also a question of if renewables can even provide the kind of power we need to start thinking about carbon capture while maintaining modern society and standard of living while raising the third world into better living conditions. From what I've read, they physically (as in the laws of physics prohibit it) cannot. Maybe that's a question for the power generation megathread which I ought to follow more closely. But I'm hardly an expert, that's just what google tells me so I'd feel better if the people who actually work on and know about this poo poo commented on it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2018 11:24
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:this is one of the hardest parts for people to get their heads around Yeah, this is actually the most important point that really can be made in relation to climate change and our potential efforts to mitigate it: Nothing "costs" anything but labour and parts. To even begin to effectively tackle our issues you have to step outside of the box that is called capitalism and realize that money is not a resource and there is no shortage of money that makes any of this impossible. We live inside a capitalist paradigm and we keep mistakenly building on its very stupid an inapplicable assumptions to formulate how we even analyze the problem, much less try to find solutions. Question your assumptions if you think of climate change in terms of monetary cost or markets. These assumptions didn't come from a place of realism and physics to begin with, and I'm even guilty of doing this in my last post.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2018 14:02
|
|
|
It's loving insidious, because I can feel myself falling into the trap again and again when I think about governmental response and interest groups and... it's just so ingrained it's unreal.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
Rip Testes posted:Bolsonaro won so forget the Amazon as a carbon sink. poo poo. Well, in prepper news me and my girlfriend are seriously considering taking over a family farm and I've got an idea for sustainably working the land using renewable energy and electrical converted farm equipment. Probably unrealistic, but it's interesting to look into and I'd probably feel a lot safer and better from a personal standpoint knowing at least part of my job would be sustainable food production. Too bad farming is a poverty trap these days, but it really feels like something worth investing in. The rational part of me is struggling with it, though, it doesn't make sense economically unless my degree becomes useless in the next 20 years. Paradoxish posted:No, it definitely makes people depressed. And why wouldn't it make people depressed? It's the challenge of the century and because of systemic selfishness, corruption and disregard for democratic will in addition to pure unenlightened self-interest from an entire generation most of the news coming in is how much is being ignored for profits, how the olds who won't live it don't give a poo poo, how there's no way to inflict the externalities of pollution on the polluters (other than in the general sense) and how progress is constantly stalled. As well as all this, there's the constant propaganda/mass media control from the moneyhavers to suppress public opinion and avoid large scale eco-riots. It looks grim, so people are grim. That said, it doesn't make any rational sense to stop fighting or avoid responsibility or stop trying everything you can to make an impact or a difference. Maybe it's bad, but effort can stop it from getting from bad to worse. I'm not talking about individual carbon savings either, but protesting, getting active about fighting climate change, voting the greenest option and trying to get a proper community going where you live. Go to meetings. Go to events. Get organized and make a village that's about mutual support. No matter how bad it gets, small communities pooling resources are going to be the best off generally speaking. So that's something for sadbrains to do, and if you're depressed about climate change and are having trouble handling it, stop reading this thread and start doing the above. If you refuse or find reasons not to, realize that what you're feeling isn't coming from a rational place and that you are depressed, not that you've reasoned yourself into that everything is hopeless and climate change is gonna get you. In which case go for some therapy and anti-depressive self help first.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2018 10:59
|
|
|
By the way this thread should have a cat or dog tax. Just to cheer us the gently caress up in general.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2018 13:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:As someone who is doing basically this (but I bought some fish moxxy after hearing about that PR guy who died from a finger cut infection) it's less that I think it will "solve" something, and more that it gives me a sense of purpose, a slight feeling of control, and something to do between elections and IPCC reports. That's some quality of life stuff right there. Right behind you, just about as soon as I can. It might not amount to much in the total picture, but at least it's putting your money where your mouth is and making a good foundation for weathering changes. It's not so bad a life either, if you can appreciate it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2018 10:22
|
|