|
Anybody have a good resource or bullet point regarding what "needs to happen" to preserve our world? I am somewhat of a single issue guy (climate/ sustainability), but I am absolutely a layman and I have difficulty with the more technical specialized information I encounter when trying to understand these issues. I breathlessly tell everybody I know about our doomed trajectory, and the lie of progress and innovation in the face of this problem (i.e. market based solutions rather then uncomfortable change/hitting the brakes ). Sometimes people ask me what I think should happen, and I immediately feel like a madman because the solutions that I understand are about as likely to happen as whatever dumb poo poo Elon musk promised that day. As I understand it: Shift (huge major shift) away from fossil fuels towards renewable Stronger regulations and enforcement regarding co2, pollution, and deforestation And here's where it really falls apart, an enormous market and cultural change regarding what we create and what we consume, building green infrastructure and mass transit so we all don't have our own vehicles, and using our power and platform to foster these measures across the globe (lol, I know) To shamefully reveal the level of my ignorance, I only reached such a hard line after reading (much of) The Limits of Growth. I never finished it, because reading it makes me problematic. It's isn't the only source I've found, though, of forward thinking people calling out the obvious unsustainability of our world, right up to philosophers during the industrial revolution. It brings despair, rage, and ultimately a feeling of castrated, hopeless powerlessness. I find a set of goals and game plans helps channel that chaos energy from self destructive to constructive, and if I'm willing to admit I haven't 100% "done the work" of immersing myself in the field maybe some of you well read goons can present a more succinct climate agenda than "our world preserves an unjust and unsustainable status quo that enriches the privileged few at the cost of everybody's future".
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2022 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
Leon Sumbitches posted:I think there are concrete consequences of climate change we should prepare for including displaced populations due to sea level rise, famine due to hardiness zones changing, resource wars between nations, and so on. Like you said, there are many of large looming problems and I might be oversimplifying but I think many are addressed in a similar way at the personal level: providing mental health care I'm a variety of modalities, promoting community, ensuring equitable distribution of resources, shifting towards a more localized food system meant to nourish, and the list goes on. I've found environmental/climate issues (in a non specialist sense) to be a great conversational tool in bar conversations. It's a great way to demand personal involvement and unequivocally highlight the failure of our current world. Things will always be hard or unfair, sure, but we know we're destroying our world in the name of enriching [people you don't like] and that's why we have to advocate for massive change. You also find out who's an absolute shithead who doesn't believe in/ care about climate change. *Edit* what I'm getting at is: while it's difficult for anybody to to not only understand, but deal with the many aspects of our impact on the climate... it's also difficult (here where I live anyway) for people to outright deny it. Hammering that point home from a place of both alarmingly reality and a sense of human indignation can transcend some political affiliations. Getting to where we need to be on climate will mean discomfort or sacrifice, and it's won't happen without people adopting an attitude of willingness or acceptance to change their world on behalf of the future. I talk about it like I want to fight. BRJurgis fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Mar 30, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2022 18:06
|
|
|
Hard not to take that as a challenge!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2022 21:35
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:But the world will continue, and 2100 will still be a richer world than with higher standards of living on average than 2022. Is that a defendable statement? Please defend it, because while I'm very much a layman I am mystified by that prediction. quote:Climate action is here to stay, whether the republicans like it or not (not that republicans winning in 2024 isn't bad for the climate - it is. But it's not catastrophic) Everything else sounds and reads to me like we wanted to avoid "catastrophic", but seemingly aren't and won't. Are we just redefining catastrophic? I never thought humans would go extinct, or that the earth would be obliterated from the cosmos, just that we'd change our world terribly and irreversibly* for the worse, to benefit the status quo and the wealthy at the expense of the masses and the future. *in the short term I guess what I'm saying is, I hope that if the worst climate predictions come to pass, the masses are too busy revolting and murdering the poo poo out of the powers that be for any of our current trends or sensibilities to even matter. Harold Fjord posted:Most of the poor people will be dead so.... Yeah this, if that happy resolution is the perpetrators developing anew over the unmarked graves of the powerless masses, I'd rather just see it all undone. If our world can't use the knowledge and power it has to correct course, but only to let the guilty cling to stability while damning us all along with them, it's no world to preserve. Last edit: feel like that reads crazy, but I am extremely mad and I can't figure out what I should remove. BRJurgis fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Apr 6, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2022 23:59
|
|
|
Thanks for the perspective. Still, ignoring the inherent injustice and logistical problems of increased crisises of refugees, resources, and war, are the new empires we're developing (under our current and seemingly future structure) going to take any better care of our only planet?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2022 01:25
|
|
|
Raine posted:i recently wrote a simplified version of how i think climate doomerism works as a non-contradictory ideology. i offer it to the marketplace here for you to ponder at your pleasure Thanks, I like this a lot. People embracing hope and happiness and good vibes is great for their own mental health. Fact is, the way we live is costing the future, and to me at least it is not morally, ethically, or logistically acceptable. Bad feelings are natural, justified, and necessary at this stage, even though we have so little power.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2022 23:59
|
|
|
I think it can be true that "There are things that can be done", and also that they are not being done, likely won't, and we have almost 0 power to do make them happen. Even climate scientists are taking to chaining themselves to things and getting arrested. Saying "yeah we're hosed gently caress it" is something I hear from people who don't really care all that much anyway and certainly don't earnestly research the issue. I challenge them (and everybody) to be strong enough to sincerely accept how grim things are, and never stop advocating for a different world. This system effectively captures all of us and makes us complicit, but it does need us. If everybody stood up, as difficult/unlikely as that sounds, we could change it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2022 18:03
|
|
|
We should all feel culpability and regret over our lives under this world, but it does no good if you can't reckon with that and be a functional healthy participant in making it better. The fact that we're all (un)willing participants and benefactors in this/these systems, with a legendary standard of life historically and geographically, and (essentially) no power to change it, is not something that's easy to deal with. The fact that it only serves to enrich the minority beyond our wildest dreams is unhealthily infuriating. But it's not supposed to be easy, its never been easy, and I have several loved ones absolutely flailing in their mind (not necessarily over climate change, but over the world they thought they were passing down or inheriting). I don't want to shame people into dysfunction and misery, because that's not constructive. But it seems without an overwhelming attitude amongst the masses that this is wrong, and our systems must be forced to change, and it's our job because we live and breath... we are doomed and we loving should be at that. Forget the life people told you that you could or should have. Maybe that's the crux of the bickering. Can you accept living during this time and being ok with it, beyond what is absolutely necessary? Do you see things changing enough under current systems that we purge shortsighted greed from the levers of power? Is humanity at an endgame of civilization where violence is inherently wrong, or is it still the same old world yet we've been fully captured by a system that nobody is even really in control of anymore? Is our peace and comfort worth the innocent lost lives and environmental damage that we know is happening and will get worse? I say sow this message and be ready.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2022 02:34
|
|
|
I'm glad we have a place to discuss these issues, and in response to the guilt and anxiety and fury we experience processing this information I'm also glad people are there to lend support. You're not helpful to anybody tearing away at yourself over this, and it's awesome that we're encouraging (what I'm going to call) self nurturing in a sort of communal/human way. If reckoning with this is an unbearable burden, please make yourself healthy and find your way of dealing with this in a constructive way. Everybody has a right to exist in a fulfilling individual life. I let my heart sing with music, my friends and loved ones, working in nature, and, yknow, booze and weed. At the same time, why should we feel comfortable if we're being honest with ourselves. Why should our dreams be of success prosperity and comfort within a system we know is wrong. I don't know that pandoras box (wrt to understanding our worlds structure, it's trajectory, the damage it causes and our complicity in it) can be closed. Wrong is wrong. Bad feelings are natural too, and honestly the critical mass of earth humans don't feel bad enough about how things are going. If and when we reach that point, maybe the call will be answered. I dream of change. I've always been an outsider, changing schools at a young age, put in advanced classes only to cause trouble and dissapoint. I gave up on the success and world promised to me many years ago when I realized it was the source my overwhelming dysfunction and dehumanization. I ask others to do this if they can bear. Give up on "winning" at this life in any of the ways that is presented to you. Our world is wrong and we should not seek to build our place in it in any way that doesn't pursue our truth. I said what I said about myself to acknowledge that it's easier for me because I started that path long ago. It's not like I'm here making monumental change happen because I'm poor, worry my family and friends, and have no will or expectation to "succeed" in this life. Yet rebelling against the order of our world is necessary for things to get better. The sincerity and intent of enough people becomes power. Be angry, disenfranchised, loud and unsatisfied. Be an anti-consumer. Be strong, be a fighter, a soldier. We need that strength and intent whether we are to accomplish our goals or simply survive. And be strong for those who can't, that we might show the promise of a better way simply through our legacy. This might seem like trite fantasy novel thinking, but the reason these are tropes is that this is the way the world has always worked. Perhaps now we've built a world where capital overpowers even that. Perhaps the world should hold our collective loving beer.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2022 02:03
|
|
|
Tony Tone posted:Gauge and prod how offline people deal with climate change. I sometimes ask people in passing about the future in hopes they may impart some wisdom I had missed, but never once have I heard a single mention of CC by any of the mid-20's-30's people I interacted with these past 10 years. I don't really see our disagreement so long as you haven't committed to giving up. It's, uh, difficult to talk about the area between my post and yours since we have basically no power or control by which to combat this legally, and even things we can't discuss wouldn't be achieve our goals under current conditions. Given the circumstances, even continuing to sound the alarm and being ready for change is objectively better than totally checking out. I may be a broken comic book villian myself, because feeling like I know my fight and my enemy (even if that enemy is a relatively intangible concept or worldview) gives me a sense of balance and fulfillment, a way to exist in this world in (relative) peace with myself. The universe is chaotic. People are exasperated, angry, disenfranchised. Systems fail. If that energy was increasingly aligned with climate preservation instead of indiscriminate rage at the world, I can think of some more favorable evening news stories than what we currently endure.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2022 15:37
|
|
|
HRU has pretty openly stated they embrace radical optimism, as frustrating as it is I don't think it's a position they'll abandon. I do think there's something to the idea of not giving up, even if all we can do is shout and practice whatever sort of boycotting, activism, collaboration, and minimalism we can manage. If some crazy unanticipated poo poo goes down and there are opportunities to seize, it'd be better or even necessary that we'd used what tools we're afforded now to inform and create a network of like-minded people. Results can be a fantasy, but the collaboration and solidarity can't be written off even if it's not enough (yet). If you think I'm asking to simply vote harder you're not using enough imagination.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2022 20:03
|
|
|
gently caress our mental health, our comfort. The idea that "somebody is doing something about this!" is directly in the way of earnest efforts, of actual change. Our world/leaders/powers/trajectory... there's no credibility, no legitimacy on the climate change front. Our world is wrong and it must be forced to change. We need a world of people willing to sacrifice and fight, and giving them the impression that "actually this is definitely gonna work just keep trying" while we knowingly perpetrate unthinkable damage that will persist for generations in the name of our peace and prosperity is something I'd call evil (were there such a thing objectively). Never stop demanding more, never stop being furious. poo poo is truly hosed and unconscionable. Short of destroying our global establishment, only the threat of destroying it will bring real concessions and change.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2022 01:33
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Pol Pot was an enlightened leftist. He truly believed he was throwing off the yoke of the capitalist class and their over educated enablers (by killing all of those educated enablers that he could lay his hands upon). It did not help the climate emergency more than it harmed people. Lol, yeah things could be worse and we can't risk what we've built and do you have a better plan (oh no that would be too disruptive and difficult). To this radical environmentalist leftist, it sounds like arguments from where you're at are "preserving our way of life/peace and prosperity is worth the unimaginable cost to the global poor right loving now, and pretty much everybody that will exist after this for lifetimes". Well I say it's not, and I'd literally prefer we all of us bear the cost of change together now (rather than just the most marginalized and poor who already do) even if it means disruption and violence. In fact it certainly does and that cost climbs the longer we put off real change. Not to mention the track record of the powers that be (that almost fully control human development at this point) when it comes to recognizing and acting on climate change. Am I not helping? Sounds like that's a good thing for you!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2022 01:13
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:What's the alternative plan that's better than the ones proposed? I think anything impactful would require a large popular movement, but given the stakes and capture a certain urgency in attitude is required beyond donating or protesting. The threat of tearing this down is what it takes to exact concessions, and our misdirection and systemic damage and exploitation is unconscionable enough the actual collapse is not unearned. We should be leaders in sustainable change with the wealth and power we have, we can't afford not to be. That is not reflected nearly enough in our population nevermind our leaders/powers. Campaign flyer protest energy is not enough, the world is radically wrong. Unprecedented in scope of damage and impact. We have to be willing to give things up and fight, and it has go be a movement not individual consumer action. The situation warrants no less. That attitude is what is most important to me presently, but a labor/climate movement, "justice and sustainability" say, I think could be effective.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2022 04:37
|
|
|
It's weird that there's any assumption from what I wrote that I think peace is a top priority or even possible. I'm saying whatever it takes to meet the moment and address climate change. I state that I believe it will take the threat of complete disruption of the economy/structure of our way of life (domestic if not global) to get meaningful concessions. It doesn't mean I don't understand the ramifications. We've captured the future of human evolution and the trajectory is an unjust longterm terrible cost that we (prosperous first world nations) are only beginning to feel even as it is and will further ravage those least participant and complicit in the process that brought us here (often directly invaded exploited or killed to prop up our way of life in fact). You say the cost of the changes I'm advocating for is too great... I'm saying the cost of our way of life is so monumentally unjust and unsustainable, if it cannot immediately correct course than it should be utterly undone. Call me a bloodthirsty idiot if you For what it's worth, this is not a rant I hastily engage in when speaking to my friends who have children. But it's a question of if what we've built is so amazing it must be preserved at all costs, or what we've built has gone so awry (or otherwise is the very problem) that the most extreme measures are required to correct or at least stop it at all costs. I hope it's clear where I'm coming from now.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2022 01:04
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:Is anyone saying the cost is too great or are they actually just pointing out that the "solutions" that you are proposing are not realistic and not going to happen? I am horrified by the tragedy of the commons that has led us here and the likely inevitability of mass deaths and displacement and wars over resources, but I also do not think that anyone is going to come along and smash the system anytime soon, no matter how much I wish capitalism could die a quick and painful death. And if that's not what you're implying then apologies, I am not here to argue, just pointing out that most people are probably trying to be optimistic and excited for even baby steps in the right direction, because they're the only thing we're realistically going to get. I'm trying to advocate climate preservation through embracing a (and hopefully replacing/overcoming other) singular and passionate worldview. People are all kinds of angry, people want to feel like strong winners. Talking incessantly about this poo poo is basically my identity at this point, and I've found a message of strength and self reliability resonates with certain people. I'm saying there is purchase for ideas like being more independent from the system, being "strong" or otherwise durable enough for your family and community. A two-fold benefit of taking power out from underneath our system and enduring ite absence... how can you threaten the status quo when you are completely materially dependant on it? I'm saying live a life of open aggression to and renouncement of our current order of consumerism and capitalism and industry. I'm saying until the masses have a different relationship with power (or the priorities and proclivities of the powers that be are forced to change) progress and hope are no victory at all and actively harmful if they diminish peoples urgency. I'm saying that systems can be threatened, destabilized, or coerced... they can (and will) fail. We may not be a le to predict or control the process or aftermath, but if it is impossible to change or deviate meaningfully from our course than, again, we should be undone by any means. It's dark triangulation. The double secret underground third way.. It's the backwards party. Not left, not right, backwards. Seriously though I'm advocating for not buying into our world or economy, planning and operating outside of it as much as possible, and not because I expect or hope to survive but because I want to help the fight. The more we buy into our system the more captured we are materially and in imagination.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2022 12:41
|
|
|
Consumption of all animals even up to humans is a natural response from the point of survival and thus will never be eradicated on an individual choice level (shaming depends on name and relatability of meal subject). For real though (not that what I said is false), the scale and capture of our consumption is obviously the problem. We should all eat less meat, but until we fundamentally change the structure of our world vegan purity tests (sorry if that's heavy handed) not only is a harder sell but serves more to divide as evidenced by this thread.* Stop eating beef if you can, maybe switch all your meat purchases to more local and/or sustainable options. I eat 2-5 local eggs every day it's a major part of my diet... i don't expect to stop. Personal choices (until we attain a mass movement or real change) just help us sleep at night.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2022 02:16
|
|
|
How are u posted:. Interesting times. It's pretty fascinating. Not only can we observe in relative comfort the displacement and death of masses of indigenous and impoverished people (largely a cost of the peace and prosperity we enjoy), but also envision a future of where everything is a genetically modified to be able to survive in a climate increasingly inhospitable to life. What a marvel this whole affair is. Some broke brained alarmists may wallow in despair and call such an attitude repugnant. They'd be right!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2022 18:24
|
|
|
How are u posted:
Despair? Justice through equitable sustainability, achieved through the threat of the wrath and retribution. I'm not sad I'm ready to kick a hole through somebody. And I'd get into the topic of toxic positivity, but I've seen some of your other posts. Nice bait and switch though, you got me!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2022 18:42
|
|
|
Had a discussion with a fishing boat first mate who considered himself informed. We both initially agreed that people were too comfortable and dependant on systems we've built.... but he meant "some people" not us, or not him! He was totally confident in our progress and trajectory. He said climate scientists repeatedly had been proven wrong and were alarmists. He said things were better than ever, technology was solving our problems. He flat out told me I was reading bullshit when I brought up temperature, droughts, crop capacity, sea level, fisheries. A geologist rented their boat and assured him climate change was a farce. He then challenged me with "and what are you doing about it?!?!?!" As my coworkers maneuvered to get between his foolish drownable body and the edge of the boat, I (somehow) remained calm and explained that I do the little available to me...working 50+ hours a week, voting, and donating to the DSA. Once he heard that we were done. I know it's just one guy, but it's also not. I wish the boat had erupted in jeers and shamed him below deck for the rest of the trip, but our only future just isn't all that important to most people and that's part of the problem. We certainly aren't doing our part to earn a tomorrow, and people like that guy are clueless and dismissive in the face of the danger. It's hard not to consider them an enemy, but that would be too easy and egotistical.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 12:53
|
|
|
slurm posted:It feels so abusive vs living fast and burning out before things get too bad. They're prolonging the inevitable vs just wrapping things up. What do you mean by "dealing with them", like justifying how you feel about our likely future to them, or trying to get them on your level, or directly bringing their kid into the conversation? There's a world full of people it's difficult to get to seriously accept and engage with climate change, I give parents of children a break. They have more reason than anybody to not want to believe it, and more deep hurt (in a sense) associated with reckoning with it. Probably better to have somebody scream at or even fight you than watch them break apart. It's a question of living your truth versus pushing it I guess. People with adult children or openly desiring to have kids are fair game though and should be exposed IMO, if ya don't mind potentially alienating yourself from people. *The expectation and desire that all this is "for us" and will continue to yield what we rely upon is one of the biggest problems in the way of real change. *edit* not just parents but everybody. Regarding parents more in the way of knowing what world you'll be a parent in, not some kind of selfishness of breeding like that one bizarre philosopher. BRJurgis fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Sep 15, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2022 02:30
|
|
|
slurm posted:I guess I want to make them break apart? Having kids is A+#1 most natural, deeply impactful to most, and an often unplanned and rather irreversible commitment of years (to most). Attacking people for being parents is like the biggest loving line in the sand imaginable what is to be gained? Maybe I am misunderstanding you, or you are successfully trolling me?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2022 02:43
|
|
|
Is there true altruism? People care, or should care, on some (perhaps partially subconscious) level about their time here, not even just legacy. Its part of how we understand our existence. How do you feel about all this and what do you want to do about it? Even if there's no satisfying effective way to fight you can still be a soldier in spirit. I don't mean pretending it's enough or going to work, but the fight can make you present. And do you want to spend your time "breaking parents"? More hedonistic to fight with love than hate. And more effective, individuals are our allies if at all possible, the systems we've built and been born into are our foes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2022 03:05
|
|
|
Summit posted:Poster: having kids is selfish cause it increases one’s carbon footprint If they want to cosplay as their enemies and receive only empathy and sincere discussion, I imagine or at least hope they won't loving bother in the future. Anyway we're all victims, captives of the real powers in our world (money and inertia I guess?) It's maddeningly frustrating how resistant people are to accepting climate crisis, and the isolation and gaslighting can be unbearable which is why we had a go of taking slurm at their word. But its entirely predictable and even understandable given human nature and the way our systems have captured and guided its development. As far as I see it, until we have enough people to enact crippling strikes, boycotts, and hell riots sabotage and otherwise wield power, every individual is a potential ally and furthermore a human just like us. Making enemies is folly when you haven't the means to overcome them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2022 02:26
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:The IPCC includes feedback effects in their estimates. It does suck! It sucks so much, one might say the best case scenario is for the way we live now to end at any cost! Yes, any cost! To watch our world progress in this way and know it won't make the logical ethical changes needed to avoid global catastrophe... suffering lasting far longer than a human lifespan, affecting the least complicit, affecting the most exploited and marginalized before it reaches those who benefit from the rape of our worlds future. I can't imagine anything more important than tackling this issue, yet through open willful self-interest or programming and human nature, I'm still often told all the reasons we technically can't stop destroying the future by people online and off. Sometimes it's even a condescending lecture. "You claim to care so much about this but can't even realize there's a war in Ukraine / trump supporters / an election coming up? We can't afford to make these changes now." In my interactions with people I am reflexively compassionate, and I not only reccomend but demand that of everyone. But clinically, academically, on paper, huge amounts of people are going to suffer and die as the result of the way we live, and I admit I fervently wish that fate would instead fall upon those who orchestrated and benefited from this horrifying tragedy. And those parties look a lot like me and most people I know, because it is us.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 01:20
|
|
|
What gets me is how clear it is that we as a world will never commit to sustainability in any controlled beneficial manner. Unpredictable chaos is the nature of existence, thus we can't tell the future, but we've built something more powerful global and resilient than anything previously. Every time chaos threatens our systems, we act in the immediate interest of preserving these systems in the short term, borrowing from the future to prop up the very machine that is destroying it. The people of wealthy comfortable nations increasingly take their peace and prosperity for granted, unwilling and unable to face giving up our absurdly unjust and unsustainable lifestyles. Unable to even imagine it, living as people did even a generation or two ago is an unthinkable notion. Meanwhile the other parts of the world (that we pillaged and exploited to establish our oh so impressive peace and prosperity) are eager to meet our levels of extraction and consumption, a level already unacceptably unsustainable, a doomed course. The details of just exactly how much damage is being done matter less when you see we will never really commit to changing. Not in a controlled constructive manner. Not saying the science should be disregarded, but "we've done slightly less damage than we expected" hardly seems reassuring when all signs point to us keeping the engines running no matter what. It's like producing some article about a fast food box that grows into a tree when it's cast out the window on the side of the highway. It's not a path into a better future, or even a different one. What power exists in our world that can truly change our course? It will never be profitable or popular to adapt to true (or even just adequate) sustainability. Not with this world in the way. I've gone from grimly expecting collapse despite holding out hope, to feeling collapse is inevitable and necessary. "Hope" is a selfish indulgence, a willful trick we play on ourselves (if we even bother to follow or care about the climate and the future of our only world). If living resigned and remorseful as a grim soldier sounds unpalatable, imagine the experiences of our descendants as conditions worsen. Imagine people being starved displaced and poisoned right now, the cost of our comfort, so that we can practice toxic positivity in the face of cartoonishly short sighted greed and denial.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 14:56
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/11/07/cop27-climate-change-report-us/ Don't worry there's reason to hope, it says once we reduce emissions to zero, warming won't continue to rise! (Other damage will outlast us) Also places with the ability to do so are reacting to climate change better and better! (Ensuring we will continue to not meet our goals even as the most vulnerable starve suffer and die) Gonna go vote for democrats after work simply to try to mitigate the scapegoating and brutality we inflict on minorities while I wait for our world to utterly collapse.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2022 18:54
|
|
|
Its low content and I take having to click a Twitter link a little personally, but "7 days for posting as cat botherer" should get some pushback. General climate discussion out there is so brainlessly, profitably toxic positivity copium... always an upshot and a reason to have hope! Agitators are the heroes of climate change discussion, haven't climate scientists self immolated within the last year or two?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2022 03:02
|
|
|
There was a story on the local NPR station the other day about depleting aquifers somewhere else. Somebody explained how running out of water was "when not if". It was followed by a local saying "we don't want some activists coming down here and doing something radical" Finally a "reasonable sounding" guy spoke about how they have to do something, but the most important part was they don't disrupt the economy, that wouldn't be fair. It's like they want to make one "lol lmao", it's so absurdly stupid. That first guy sounded angry at the idea that somebody from anywhere else, who gave a poo poo on any level, might do anything at all about the impending peril facing his community. And the supposedly reasonable guy spoke as if water needed the economy, and not the other way around. Honestly made me think whoever put the story together was "crack-pinged" themselves, like an underlying "get a load of this poo poo" energy in the face of blindness stupidity and greed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2023 13:48
|
|
|
Totally agree that they pull that poo poo as a rule, but to be fair in that movie they did literally run away from cold as if it were a slasher or monster. It was a sensationalized film and if I remember right it even did the "attractive couple sharing body heat" scene as predicted.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2023 17:50
|
|
|
These discussions about how effective certain methods are, and what's even worth it (what... matters?) kinda hinge on what you think is an acceptable result wrt damage to our planet, its climate and biosphere. It doesn't help that most of the articles and stories that hit your average news follower are traditionally rather credulous and optimistic. I'm no scientist, but I'm pretty sure "a portion of the way towards helping over the next x decades" on this timeline means we lost. This is no longer acceptable, to me. Half measures and baby steps while we cling to the ways that cause this are no longer better than nothing, they are nothing. Our ideas regarding progress and growth won't let us address this. We're not interested in preserving our world and future, we're interested in preserving our way of life, and doing so seems increasingly impossible, wrong even. Sure I'm vibes-ing. I am the vibes, randy. But it sheds a darkly humorous light on discussions like these. To paraphrase (and perhaps exaggerate) "You doomers need to be realistic/not let perfect be the enemy of good! We can't just stop using cars/fossil fuel/extracting consuming and creating waste on a scale the planet cannot possibly bear!" Well, you're right. I agree. And all the effort to find "solutions" within those parameters will literally not matter, because our world will literally fail. The collapse of the world we've build, a huge change in material reality, ideals, paradigms. Far more likely than the world coming together to live sustainably. We seem to be past that, and I don't feel optimistic we'll suddenly be better at global communal sustainability on an increasingly desperate chaotic uninhabitable planet. Until then, we can cry or laugh about having the knowledge and ability, but not the will, to even enact many of our half measures. I haven't given up, but I have no meaningful way to fight. I've accepted what should be unacceptable. And I have empathy for everybody bothering to give a poo poo about any of this, because I feel like I've held every position represented at one time or another. Now I'm just
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2023 14:04
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:you have the luxury of entitled perfectionist nihlism because you obviously dont have loved ones in the death zones If your response to what I wrote is to assert that I both don't care and don't understand 1>0, you either need to read it again or you're messing with me (or assuming bad faith). *are the death zones not going to be death zones? Are the half measures we're willing to pursue in the interest of preserving our way of life (i.e the problem) going to meaningfully mitigate those death zones? The whole purpose of my post is understanding. We're all choosing to spend time informing ourselves and discussing this poo poo, somebody might not draw the same conclusion as you but I doubt anybody who bothers to read and post here doesn't care. Seeing somebody who indeed cares deeply become a ... "perfectionist nihilist" (I guess?) isn't their personal failing, it's indicative of the crushing tragedy we're watching unfold. BRJurgis fucked around with this message at 15:03 on Apr 23, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2023 14:49
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:Well define "meaningfully". You could argue it doesn't make a meaningful difference to cure 1 child of a given disease if 99 other children can't be cured. I would argue that anything that makes a positive difference is worth doing whether or not other, better options exist or it is meaningful or sufficient or adequate etc by whatever preferred arbitrary definition. To use your analogy, it seems to me we built a machine that gives children diseases, and rather than disassembling it in earnest we're just tweaking it here and there and acting like it's progress. In fact we cannot live without the child disease machine, to suggest so is an absurdity. However we are committed to making it give less diseases, as long as it doesn't interfere with the machine too much. Cutting the disease rate too much is bad for the machine though, so we're willing to make some of the diseases less awful. Course it's a slim margin, but we can definitely make some of the diseases more immediately fatal, so when we look at the spreadsheets there's less children suffering from disease (because they died faster). Innovation... progress.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2023 16:26
|
|
|
Vitamin Me posted:Man, if only we had some kind of communication device that allowed us to stay home Think he means politicians (unless that's the joke). I don't think democracy could save us, certainly not the one we've got.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
It's better to eat less meat. It's better to use less plastic. The idea that you aren't serious about changing things if you're not vegan, especially if you're poor working class, is loving ridiculous. That same line of thought leads to living in a cave in the woods, completely detached from society. Yeah, I think that's ideologically correct, but it's absurdly difficult and it doesn't solve our problems. Should I feel guilty for buying a sandwich or plastic bottled beverage when I spend 10+ hours a day tending to the properties of people who own multiple homes and vehicles across the country or planet? No more guilty than I feel for being an American, or a modern human on any level. Be vegan if it helps you sleep at night, good on ya. But the idea that "are you a vegan though?" is leveraged as some sort of dunk is laughable.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2023 17:27
|
|
|
This the kind of discourse you only really see online, because if you acted like this in person people would AT BEST laugh and walk away. Gonna go outside to the store and deli across the street, and scream at people for being consumers. I'll show them the error of their ways, get on my level.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2023 17:58
|
|
|
I dont personally believe eating meat is wrong in and of itself, the way we do it as a society/economy is the problem. But every dollar I make and spend props this up, and I want to eat delicious meat with its ready protein. It would absolutely be better if I didn't, or strictly bought from local sustainable humane sources (if I could consistently afford that wrt money and time). But I spend most of the day doing physical labor, and have limited time and resources. If you want to judge me or otherwise say I'm not strong enough to live my ideals, fine. In a way you're right. But I've already lost that fight, unless I live in the woods disconnected from society entirely. And that would have just as negligible an effect as me not eating meat, and both are an unrealistic option for large amounts of people. I refuse to buy from Amazon. I dislike materialism, consumerism, and large companies like (and especially) Amazon. When my coworker buys work clothes or stuff for their kid off Amazon, sure I wish they wouldnt and I've absoluteky discussed how bad Amazon is. But when I know how little time and means they have, I'm not gonna crawl up their rear end about it. We are captured, compromised. There's nothing wrong with telling people how terrible the agricultural industry is, encouraging them to eat less meat, or living as a good example. But when obtaining nutrients, necessary goods, and shelter is such a thoroughly captured process I don't see why anybody would have an aggressively holier-than-thou attitude about it. I personally would be more concerned with solidarity, winning allies.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2023 22:32
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:You are right that the problem is controls of multiple interconnect complex systems by humans rather than by the interconnected feed back loops of the systems. I lost the thrust of the post you quoted by the time I got to the end, can you elaborate on your response? Maybe that will help me understand both better. Zeta Taskforce posted:Your attack is a strawman argument but it's not like it could ever happen politically anyway; good luck convincing people that they can't have something and that's how its going to be. You are proposing a command economy. Economics applies to every society and form of government, it's just more transparent in a capitalist economy vs a command economy. One of the most fundamental tenants of economics is that if you want more of something to happen you make that product or service cheaper, if you want less of something you make it more expensive. Where I do agree with you is the current action with regard to climate is a failure. But I think that its because the costs of our current methods of production don't take into account the real costs, companies are dumping their pollution into the sky for free but those costs are felt in the costs of floods, fires, heatwaves, diseases, etc. T.W.T. is essentially proposing a carbon tax. Call it that, call it a sin tax, whatever, it is the same thing. If you want less beef, make it more expensive. If you want more people to live near public transit, make more of it and make it cheaper. When will "preserve our planet" be a more powerful interest than "make money now"? Current powers seem to lack both the desire and ability to meaningfully turn the dial from "extract consume profit" towards "preserve and sustain". And yeah, were they to earnestly undertake those actions their power would be diminished because supply and consumers wouldn't accept less.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2023 18:07
|
|
|
Zeta Taskforce posted:Where did you get the impression that I support this laissez faire capitalism that is happening now? Rather what I am saying is that forcing every current capitalist economy into a command one as a necessary precondition to "preserve our planet" can never happen. It just won't happen. But even if it did, who would get to make those commands? History teaches us command economies have if anything been worse than fully capitalist ones. Please give examples of a successful command economy that has both focused on the environment and provided an acceptable standard of living. Personally I think we can no longer be productive or constructive (in a climate change sense) while the world as we've built it still stands. I feel we've already failed, it just hasn't collapsed yet. Every explanation of why a solution isn't realistic serves only to reinforce this grim conclusion. I don't see how this can we tweaked or reformed, it will collapse because of the very limitations you outlined wrt meaningfully correcting ourselves. We cannot realistically accept or even imagine another outcome.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2023 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Let me rephrase the argument then, does consumerism have to end in order to solve climate change? I don't think it does. It has little to do with climate change in the scheme of things are mostly a irrelevant sideshow. I agree with you in that it seems climate change will end consumerism before consumerism ends climate change.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2023 03:22
|
|