Salta al contenuto principale

in reply to silence7

Our kids will be really ashamed of us.

Short term profits are way more important than the future of our kids I guess.

in reply to filister

I'm already ashamed of us. I have a hard time walking the fine line between preparing my children for a difficult future and raising kids who know happiness.
in reply to StinkyFingerItchyBum

I just chose to never have kids because there was never any possibility that humanity would overcome our narcissistic greed prior to ecological collapse.

That was 20 years ago. The last decade has only solidified the certainty of collapse in my mind.

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to StinkyFingerItchyBum

As a parent: happiness is about expectations. The exhuberance of youth can carry them as long as we aren't preparing them for the halcyon, easy days of the 1990s. Life will be hard, it always has been, but there can still be fun and rewarding experiences. They need to know resilience, independence, and be quick on their feet both mentally and physically.
in reply to filister

America voted for a child rapist, no one postering actually cares about kids
in reply to filister

it seemed like my kids probably wouldn't have a good future, so i didn't have any
in reply to silence7

Even if it wasn't already too late, the oligarchs profiting from the demise of the planet are in full control of information sources and politicians worldwide. The only way the planet survives is if humanity is wiped out through a global incurable plague at this point.

We have nobody but ourselves to blame for the reckoning that is coming after decades of voting against our own interests and choosing convenience of fossil fuels over the environment.

in reply to Tehbaz

It's no use going for collective blame and doomerism.

"We have nobody but ourselves to blame..." yeah, except that guy over there burning coal and guzzling fuel like there's no tomorrow.
"The only way is to wipe humanity" ...or do something about it for once.

As long as we're here, no matter how bad it is, we have to step against it in the ways we can. It's not us who makes it so. We don't want that. And it's essential to make it a very clear and loud statement one can not turn away from.

Look up your local climate activist groups. See what can be done. Participate in protests. Do it.

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to Allero

It’s no use going for collective blame and doomerism


Honestly, I think we could have done with a lot more doomerism. thisisfine.jpg-ism is the biggest reason why a political solution is impossible.

in reply to Allero

yeah, except that guy over there burning coal and guzzling fuel like there’s no tomorrow


You mean the thing that allowed us to reach 8 billion and growing? There's no way you're getting from the 19th century to today without fossil fuels. You are here because of them. It's got nothing to do with "that guy" over there.

Unless you are in a log cabin you hewed yourself by hand, raise chickens with no feedstock that came from fossil-fuel powered agriculture, wear nothing but natural fibers and leather you tanned yourself with oak tannins, etc

in reply to HugeNerd

That’s a great response for the 1970s but since then we’ve been developing awareness of the magnitude of the crisis and developing solutions. It’s been time to move on from the nineteenth century

We all should have been making better choices for half a century now. If you’re not at least making better choices today, you can’t blame lack of knowledge or lack of technology

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to AA5B

You forget to mention the flipside: we can't sustain 8, let alone 10, billion with sustainable energy. The carrying capacity of the planet with sustainable energy is called the 18th century.

Sure, we can do it, who is ready for the consequences?

in reply to HugeNerd

literaly ceasing to throw 1/3rd of all food into dumpsters and shutting off data centers for AI enables all that budget
in reply to HugeNerd

In the 18th century, we had the technology of 18th century. We did not have photovoltaics, electrical wind and hydro, batteries. We do have them now, and as things stand, renewables are already cheaper than the alternatives.

Energy-wise, we can sustain much, much more people.

And even agriculture can accomodate for more people than we have now. With modern green agricultural technologies improving the efficiency of green farming, as well as wider accomodation of vegetarian diets and alternative protein sources, we can provide food for much more people with much less fossils.

Besides, better logistics and organizational measures can lead to less food perishing before it reaches the consumer, and less of the perfectly good food being thrown away.

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to Allero

Yes, and without the discovery of cubic miles of oil, we wouldn't have had the energy and power to get to the point we are now.

You are looking only at electrical energy, and we certainly DO NOT have the capacity to keep our little planetary civilization going without fossil fuels.

Think of it like this: Even if you could travel back in time to 1850 with the knowledge of GaNFETs, 30%+ efficient solar panels, and lithium batteries, how would you be able to do anything about it?

How would you mine the enormous amounts of copper and other materials needed with the infrastructure of 1850: wooden carts, horses, and a few steam shovels as advanced and precious as a modern-day aircraft carrier?

How would you feed the people that are now no longer working in the agricultural domain without inputs of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides?

The reason is that knowledge without energy is an abstract idea.

So, yes, short term, all the rich parts of world will be able to pat themselves on the back about solar energy, but as your everyday household appliances degrade, where and how will you get the materials and resources to say, make a new washing machine?

Please don't tell me you think we got to 8 billion people because of vaccines? Or that we shouldn't worry and just keep adding endless mouths on this planet?

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to HugeNerd

The thing is, there's no need to rebuild the world from the 1850s.

We already have the required machinery and energy. We can make use of what we have, even fossil-powered, to speed up the green transition. Our only goal is to keep it going at a growing pace.

As per agriculture, there are sustainable solutions that I addressed in my other response to you. There are green fertilizers, and there are also genetically modified plants able to produce their own pesticides. There are also innovations in logistics and food sharing initiatives to make less food rot without use.

We have the knowledge, we have the energy. What we lack is the political will to shut down those standing in the way for their own gain over our collective future.

in reply to HugeNerd

"pay respect to your abusive overlord, serf! you were bred in that pigsty and you would be nothing without it! do not try to change the world for others that would be born in pigstys..."
in reply to HugeNerd

Except we live in 2025, and we have modern green technology enabling us to do a lot of things differently.

We can get our power from renewables, and newest sodium battery/pumped hydro/thermal storage techniques are brilliant and more eco-friendly than ever.
We now have modern green fabrics, hydrogen steel, etc. etc.
We now have greener agriculture technologies, as well as efficient biogas collection and utilization. You can even make some polymers, like polyethylene, out of that alone!

We have what it takes to reverse course. But following that path means upsetting fossil giants, while also investing heavily into the infractructure. And right now, it is easier for politicians to ignore the passive crowd than it is to ignore their sponsors. We need to tilt that balance.

in reply to Allero

Technology without energy is a sculpture.

Long term, 50 years, we are looking at a terminal decline in what humanity will be able to do as a species. Going from kites to Apollo 11 in 50 years, for example, will never, ever happen again. And it wasn't the guidance computer that got you to the Moon, it was 1000 tons of kerosene in a tube that did it.

You, like many, simply look at electrical power and think everything's solved.

We certainly can run our affairs on renewable (sun, wind, water, maybe geothermal, tidal) sources, but that society will look nothing at all like ours. Think wooden windmills, not skyscrapers.

Probably for the best too, but the assumptions built-in to the necessary changes simply mean endless strife and pain in the meantime.

What do you mean I can't have a car? What do you mean I can only travel on a jet 4 times in my entire lifetime? What do you mean we have far fewer citrus fruits in the grocery store in winter? Doesn't food, like, grow all the time, like in the dirt? What do you mean we need fossil fertilizers and synthetic pesticides and endless machinery and irrigation to get me my smokehouse almonds? What do you mean I have to repair and keep my 10 year old washing machine for 20 more years? What do you mean I have to wear the same clothes? What do you mean I have to live in a box when my parents had a home with a front and backyard?

It's going to get ugly, and the fact that the richest few, and I don't mean Elon, I mean you and me chatting on a workday afternoon, have shiny toys means all that much.

Electricity runs the appliances that fossil fuels allow us to build.

in reply to HugeNerd

Electrical power + water = rocket fuel. You don't have to use kerosene to launch to space - not that it's the highest priority anyway.

Why do you equate renewables with primitivism? What exactly stops you from building a skyscraper in a renewable-powered world? We do have green steel, concrete and glass. Besides, most use cases do not require skyscrapers in the first place, and they are seen as undesirable by many urbanists.

Now, yes, switching to sustainable lifestyles is not without compromise here and there, especially on the first stages of green transition. We have to put our effort into this, and there's no way around this. But with rational organizing, we can end up making something so much better!

  • Properly developed public transportation minimizes time and comfort losses associated with this mode of commuting, while making streets and air cleaner, freeing up plenty of space for pedestrians and buildings.
  • Comfortable high-speed rail minimizes the need for planes, enabling high-speed travel without all the airport controls and inconveniences and with plenty of amazing vistas.
  • Locally sourced seasonal varieties bring back the sense of excitement and allow you to explore so much more than just apples and oranges - there's a trove of underdeveloped cultivars waiting for their time to shine!
  • Plenty of said cultivars are not particularly demanding; also, green fertilizers (for example, microbiological ones, alongside good old manure and compost) are available and can be produced at any scale you need without the need for fossils.
  • Easily repairable (user-repairable wherever possible) tech removes financial and organizational anxieties about breaking your devices. Something broke? Just...take spare parts and an hour, and it's good as new.
  • Clothing can always be torn and reassembled in new creative ways! This opens up endless possibilities for creativity, and if you personally don't like it, I'm pretty sure a local atelier will be happy to help you.
  • Community is key to urban living! With more interaction between you and your neighbors and the culture of common responsibility over shared resources, you can turn any "box" into a sprawling place people love to live in. We need to combat the individualist culture to make it work, though.

In this age of sustainability, there's no issue in having a smartphone, or laptop, or whatever you write this on. In fact, right now there are tech brands oriented at sustainability, long-term support, user repairability and more. Fairphone, Framework, you name it!

We can build our tools, appliances and toys in a post-fossil fuel world. And we can make use of the materials we've already extracted to make it even greener.

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to Tehbaz

The planet will survive just fine, it has been through worse cataclysmic events, but humans may not be able to keep up with climate change and disappear along with other contemporary species.

The problem is that humanity can be wiped by the actions of a handful of individuals with the connivance of a majority. What you are proposing makes no sense at all.

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to Tryenjer

but humans may not be able to keep up with climate change and disappear along with other contemporary species.


Finally something cheerful.

in reply to Tehbaz

Gail Berman is to blame. She cancelled Firefly and doomed humanity in the process.
in reply to silence7

I've really been feeling vindicated for my choice not to have children lately
in reply to frunch

More food and resources for the conservatives to multiply. Great choice in resigning the once great humanity to corrupt sociopaths 🙄
in reply to arin

You're right. I will have kids so that children of conservatives don't just get to run around the wasteland unchallenged but have to fight my kids for food and water. This will make me feel so much better.
in reply to arin

Such a silly argument. Contributing genetics isn't the only way to influence future generations. I may not be a parent, but I (and many more people) educate others' children every day.

Just because someone doesn't bring a kid into the world doesn't mean they're giving up on the future. Individualist cultures may have people thinking that nuclear families are the end-all, be-all of child-rearing, but it still "takes a village."

in reply to arin

Let them raise their children in the hellscape they created. Let them explain to their children why things are so awful. I won't be around nor will my children have to suffer for the choices all those conservatives demanded.
in reply to frunch

Yep, same. I love my non-existent children too much to bring them into a world which I only really see getting worse in their hypothetical lifetime. Also helps me have a bit more resources to support the little ones of friends and family to hopefully help their lives suck less despite what they were born into.
Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to silence7

Only when we can step away from capitalism can we change course. Until then, the system locks everyone in and we're just tinkering with detail. And that step will be a rough one, but it is necessary.
Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to floofloof

Modern society is locked into reliance on capitalism systems. Nearly impossible to go off grid completely without insane risk of health and survivability for 99.99% of modern urban people.
in reply to arin

urban people


Funny how I don't remember the last hospital I saw in the middle of a corn field.

in reply to JoshuaFalken

Hospital is less important if you starve. We're dependent on Capitalistic farmers and grocery markets. The farmers are dependent on the seed industries for most mass produced crops with higher yields.
in reply to arin

Farmers are also dependant on soil quality, temperature, sunshine, equipment that largely relies on fuel, and distribution for the crops they grow.

Not being an oracle myself, I'll take an educated guess that when the temperature keeps climbing, the conditions that allow for outdoor food production will also change. Likely, the hardiness zones will shift to places with no farmland, and the current hardiness zones will be subject to flooding or drought or both.

Might be tricky business if the best farmland is suddenly on the side of K2.

in reply to silence7

I've always liked Antonio Gutteres. While a politician, he has been the most honest of them when it comes to climate change.
in reply to silence7

Wouldn't it be nice if we weren't ruled by psychopathic idiots, and this might have actually made a difference?
in reply to Naich

Best hope rn is the solar panels from China that every country from African to Pakistan are able to install and use less fuel
in reply to arin

No, our best hope is that our best scientists learn magic and then rapidly enable wide scale adoption of fusion reactors that are efficient enough to generate free energy that we can use for a bunch of, yet to be invented, sci-fi technologies that deal with the huge pile of shitty challenges that are amassing at our doorstep.

The odds of short to mid term survival of civilization is statistically insignificant.

in reply to TipsyMcGee

If our scientists learn magic why are they going through all that instead of just casting some spells to alter the atmosphere to optimal parameters for human life? They could even replenish oil wells so we can keep drilling perpetually. Maybe they should cast some spells for agricultural and fresh drinkable water production and such also. If scientists used their magic more efficiently we probably wouldn’t even have this issue to begin with.
in reply to Waraugh

I agree, inefficient magic use in the scientific community is to blame for this predicament.
in reply to SaveTheTuaHawk

Well neither is "free" energy, but as opposed to solar and existing technologies, cold fusion is claimed to offer energy so abundant that it's basically free. Solar don't work on the scale required to solve the problems that climate change bring (carbon capture, water desalination, replacing every critical earth system we're breaking) AND maintaining the rising power requirements of modernity.

Solar and wind technologies would have been an excellent basis for building a different type of society, where we also vastly reduce our energy consumtion and rethink modern economy. That would be nice, but those discussions are simply off the table at the moment. People want cheeseburgers, Amazon Prime and pickup trucks. No such things in Solar Punk Utopia.

in reply to TipsyMcGee

Exactly. I wager we're headed toward more of a steampunk dystopia, where the last remnants of civilization choke on our own detritus.
in reply to Naich

Sure blame politicians for the fact that people are going into deeper and deeper debt to buy bigger and bigger trucks.
in reply to SaveTheTuaHawk

If the politicians would have refused bribes,

the standards wouldn't have come into fruition that allowed the auto industry to decouple vehicle size and weight from energy efficiency;

the trams systems wouldn't have been bought up, shut down, and rails ripped from the ground to make room for more lanes;

the energy sector wouldn't have septupled down on an invisible gas that's 20x worse than burning coal;

the healthcare companies would be run by medical experts finding the best treatment instead of by money men denying care by default;

the technology we developed wouldn't be tracking every time we blink to create advertising opportunities;

the houses we build wouldn't sit vacant waiting for a tenant to pay half their income for the privilege of having no equity...

Greed is the problem.

It's understandable within capitalism why corporations would push boundaries to make money, but our politicians are supposed to be the force of opposition. Instead they look the other way while pocketing another cheque or airline ticket or deed to a brownstone.

I'm as pro active transportation as anyone I have ever met, but it's delusional to blame people for buying a large, expensive vehicle when the manufacturers keep discontinuing small, cheap cars because the return on investment isn't as high. The politicians could require them to make two compact cars for every pickup or SUV, but they don't because they're greedy just like the corporations.

There are no checks and balances anymore, and the politicians are to blame. Some blame in certain places should also land on the electorate, to be sure. But with every city, neighbourhood, and street gerrymandered to look like a hand drawn map by Michael J. Fox, it's mostly the politicians on the hook for all this.

in reply to Naich

The global co-operation necessary to deal effectively with climate change is actively prevented by [fossil-fuel-powered-]capitalism's inherent competition.

We are going to evolve through crisis, not pro-active change. Let's be polite and call climate change a crisis multiplier.

These are the good old days so try and find a way to enjoy them.

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to Naich

Wouldn’t it be nice if we weren’t ruled by psychopathic idiots


HumanHistory_IRL

in reply to Naich

I still contemplate if we had gore instead of bush. Its just insane how different the world could be.
in reply to silence7

Fuck it, start geoengineering. Snowpiercer actually looked kind of fun.
in reply to ExLisper

We already have one country fucking society, the climate, the economy, etc thanks to no regulations. We definitely should also let them obscure the fucking sun
in reply to floquant

Country? Are you some sort of socialist? Keep the government out of it. We should pay Elon Musk and Bezos to do it.
in reply to silence7

World is too busy deciding whether to kill minorities or tax the rich an extra few percent to make any progress on this.
in reply to FlyingCircus

No we don't.

What we really need is people to stop fantasizing about spherical revolutions in frictionless societies and do the boring, unfun, hard things that actually make a difference.

It requires people not doing nothing until magically the perfect thing comes along and realizing they'll have to wade through and actively support shit, until they've successfully reformed or composted said shit into something that is finally able to grow the first leafs of anything resembling a society they want.

I'm just so tired of people rejecting the facts of the political systems they live under in order to pretend to chase some other system they won't see within their life time.

We have to pick the least bad option and then try to make them better because that's just the way shit works. Acknowledging that doesn't mean you are complicit or any other such nonsense in the same way acknowledging climate change doesn't mean you don't want a climate that isn't rapidly deteriorating.

"But if x, y, and z people just..." yeah well they won't, and we know they won't, so we have the constraints we have.

Not super directed at you, I've just been seeing entirely too many naive, in my opinion, fake socialists that seem to only value socialism as far as they can use it as a weapon to brandish against liberals and other socialists who simply see reality and acknowledge that doing anything requires getting your hands dirty.

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to Credibly_Human

Taxes and levies to incentivise behavior don't work. People will eat shit salads before they give up their F150s. We can't just let people pay to avoid responsibility.
in reply to SaveTheTuaHawk

Have you ever considered taxes to pay for collective goods and services, making peoples lives easier, them smarter, building trust in the idea that government can work and giving the government more teeth?

People will eat shit salads before they give up their F150s. We can’t just let people pay to avoid responsibility.


The F150 people were sold on the ridiculous trucks by the automotive industry. Theyre also much smaller as a part of the problem.

The people who make decisions we all feel forced to live with are the ones whose businesses choose the path of least resistance

in reply to Credibly_Human

F150s are a significant part of the entire emissions of the united states. Cars in general are one of the largest single categories.
in reply to Fredthefishlord

How do you change that though? By beating down the people who have the least damage per person? Or by beating down the companies that push these products, and more importantly the ownership class that owns them and casually use private jets to chauffeur their poodles around?
in reply to Credibly_Human

You cannot do one or the other to stop climate change. You have to do both. Again, cars are one of the single largest polluters in the world, and especially in the usa. The working class will need to make changes in their life styles as well. The problem is not solveable just by having companies change, consumers also need to be willing to accept changes in purchasing habits
in reply to Fredthefishlord

I feel you misunderstand my point.

I'm saying consumers are way less responsible for their purchasing decisions than many people think.

Car centricity is a societal problem. The big trucks are a car company propoganda problem.

in reply to Credibly_Human

Consumers are not babies. Most are not children. They can take full responsibility for their own choices and failure to research when it's available. There is a reasonable extent that can be forgiven from lack of information. But most is still their fault. See people drinking bottles water when they have perfect access to safe drinking water. See people driving to work when they're easily within public transit areas. See people buying slave labor made trinkets off temu, shein, amazon, AliExpress, and many more, or buying constant new shitly made polyester clothes because "fashion".

Society is created by those who participate. Hand waving "it's a society problem" denies the individual responsibility of everyone to guide society.

All the information is easily accessible and clear to everyone. They are making a conscious decision to pollute more for their own convenience. This is not saying companies are not also responsible for massive amounts of waste. Do not take it like that. But people need to also understand lifestyles cannot stay the same and still fight climate change. People need to give up their trinkets, fast fashion, cars, etc, if they want to actually fight climate change and pollution

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to Fredthefishlord

Consumers are not babies. Most are not children. They can take full responsibility for their own choices and failure to research when it’s available.


This is an attitude that seeks to attribute blame rather than practically solve the problem.

This is evidenced by you continuing to say:

There is a reasonable extent that can be forgiven from lack of information.


Which only deals with this from thinking about this as a "who do I blame" rather than a "How can society solve this problem".

We've seen that consumers for instance, don't choose excess packaging, companies do.

In that same way, with things like the CAFE standards, Chicken tax and other ways that trucks are incentivised not to mention propagandized, its easy to see how this consumer "switch in preference" was manufactured, in the same way that the consumer switch to eating 4 times the amount of cheese within a few decades was a manufactured choice by teams of lobbyists.

We could all simply choose to consumer less animal product, be healthier and leave the environment in a much better position, but yet schools are still forced to feed kids milk with every meal due to lobbying.

Basically always, the root cause lies somewhere with some lobbyist group pushing their interests over that of the consumer.

You can handwave that away and choose to focus on personal choice, but to do that is to ignore the fact that for every issue you care about a whole lot, many people have issues they care about more, even if you're just talking about fellow climate appreciating folks. What I'm saying is people can't put all of their energy into every issue all at once. No human can. They'd burn out and be unable to move. That's why these things matter and can only really be solved at the policy level.

See people driving to work when they’re easily within public transit areas.


You ever stop to think of the long history of car companies actively and successfully lobbying to ruin public transits image and efficiency in the US?

This didn't just put up over night. People didnt just magically have these conclusions.

See people buying slave labor made trinkets off temu, shein, amazon, AliExpress, and many more, or buying constant new shitly made polyester clothes because “fashion”.


I guarantee you there are areas of life you are blind to as well, where someone equally as idealistic to you and equally looking for someone to blame rather than solving the problem, is screaming at the top of their lungs angry you don't do something about it thinking the same as you "the information is all there!!!"

All the information is easily accessible and clear to everyone. They are making a conscious decision to pollute more for their own convenience. This is not saying companies are not also responsible for massive amounts of waste. Do not take it like that. But people need to also understand lifestyles cannot stay the same and still fight climate change. People need to give up their trinkets, fast fashion, cars, etc, if they want to actually fight climate change and pollution


Yada yada yada, but they won't, and until you get the reasons why they won't, and how humans have finite focus, and do burnout, or become apathetic, often due to literal people whose jobs it is to get them to, you won't be trying to solve the problem, but instead you'll be trying to pin the blame to the least powerful people in the scenario.

in reply to Credibly_Human

This is an attitude that seeks to attribute blame rather than practically solve the problem.


Attribute responsibility. People need to take responsibility for their own decisions, and change them.

You can handwave that away and choose to focus on personal choice


I'm not. I mention it in response to people's attempts to claim it's never their fault. It's always someone else's fault. That there's nothing they can do, it's always everyone else.

We could all simply choose to consumer less animal product, be healthier and leave the environment in a much better position, but yet schools are still forced to feed kids milk with every meal due to lobbying.


And society would be better off for that change anyways.

You ever stop to think of the long history of car companies actively and successfully lobbying to ruin public transits image and efficiency in the US?


People who are in areas with public transit and refuse to use it because it's a minor inconvenience are specifically who I'm talking about that with. And yes, people's votes helped cause that change.

What I'm saying is people can't put all of their energy into every issue all at once. No human can


They don't need to. They can make multiple small choices and lifestyle changes to great benefit. A literal world ending threat should be the most important issue.

I guarantee you there are areas of life you are blind to as well


I'm sure there are. I know there are. Every year I strive to improve. To consume less. To eat less meat. To bike and rid myself of the car I drove for far too long. Improvement takes time. It's not a one second thing, it takes decades of effort. But it makes a difference, one little step, one person at a time, makes a difference. However, I can be sure I'm actually trying.

you won't be trying to solve the problem, but instead you'll be trying to pin the blame to the least powerful people in the scenario.


No rain drop thinks it caused the flood. Every, single, bit matters. A response needs to come from all sides. From the top down, regulating companies to use electric, tax heavily on plastic waste. From the bottom up, encouraging people to take public transit and bike, partly through public awareness campaigns and partly through increased bike and train infrastructure. You can't solve it by only focusing on companies. You HAVE to get the consumers to be willing to change their habits as well. People need to be aware that they DO have an impact, and their individual changes will make a difference.

A lot of people's apathy is driven by the false perception that they cannot make a difference with their own power. That their vote doesn't matter. These false perceptions are what need to be changes so that society can move forward, and push the companies, through laws, punishments, and boycotts, into being environmentally sound.

in reply to Fredthefishlord

Attribute responsibility. People need to take responsibility for their own decisions, and change them.


You're just playing word salad here.

It's still about attributing blame because you refuse to account for how people operate and how effective lobbying/propaganda groups are on regular people who aren't as aware on any given topic as you are.

I’m not. I mention it in response to people’s attempts to claim it’s never their fault. It’s always someone else’s fault. That there’s nothing they can do, it’s always everyone else.


This is a made up strawman. No one is saying that here, and people aren't typically saying that without a large amount of nuance and less absoluteness on this topic.

And society would be better off for that change anyways.


You say this like you're making a point when instead you make it clear you udderly missed my point. The point was that its "technically" peoples choice, but it clearly isn't with how heavy the lobbying is.

The hope was that this would moove your opinion and help you culture an appreciation for the extremely strong effects of propaganda and lobbying such that something people think is choice, is far less choice than they think.

Perhaps I'm milking this point now, but I really thought it persuede you to think more about how people who aren't in your specific bubble think and are affected.

People who are in areas with public transit and refuse to use it because it’s a minor inconvenience are specifically who I’m talking about that with. And yes, people’s votes helped cause that change.


People's votes after what though? People didn't just randomly form these opinions.

People in Europe have completely different opinions in general, and you know what the major factor is? A lack of the massive inertial propaganda that the US has had. Did you check out my link? I encourage you to watch it.

It's just not as simple as you make it out to be.

I’m sure there are. I know there are. Every year I strive to improve. To consume less. To eat less meat. To bike and rid myself of the car I drove for far too long. Improvement takes time. It’s not a one second thing, it takes decades of effort. But it makes a difference, one little step, one person at a time, makes a difference. However, I can be sure I’m actually trying.


It sure does, now how can you say all that, but miss my point entirely that there could be someone putting the exact same amount of effort into being a better person yet not have their issues align with yours on this at all?

Do you not see why policy is the major way to change their habits?

No rain drop thinks it caused the flood. Every, single, bit matters.


You aren't arguing against me. You just aren't reading my points at all.

A response needs to come from all sides


That is literally impossible for the very same reasons that you said "I’m sure there are. I know there are." above. If you can't, how the hell are you expecting other people to for the issues you find most important?

You can’t solve it by only focusing on companies.


Quite frankly, you absolutely could. If the propaganda influencing consumer choices was stopped, you'd have a good enough solution.

Manufacturers would be making smaller vehicles due to regulations, people couldn't choose monstrosities, roads would get slimmer in new development, public transportation would be built better.

Its completely possible from a top down approach, but utterly impossible when trying to focus from a bottom up approach.

A lot of people’s apathy is driven by the false perception that they cannot make a difference with their own power.


Partially because there are so many folks like you who without realizing they are doing so, expect everyone to understand and care about every topic, even while you yourself obviously could not live up to such an unrealistic standard.

But also partially because of propaganda.

Why do you think BP loves telling people to take personal responsibility over climate issues? They know its a dead end.

That their vote doesn’t matter.


This part I absolutely agree with and constantly argue with people on lemmy about. So many people believe the only way out is some whimsical fantastical revolution that will never come, or a third party that would actually secure a victory for the enemies.

in reply to Credibly_Human

care about every topic


I expect them to care about the potential mass death of most humans and environments that has been blasting on the news and taught to most for decades .. and I think that's reasonable.

The point was that its "technically" peoples choice, but it clearly isn't with how heavy the lobbying is.


If someone tells you to kill a guy and you do, does it make sense to exclusively blame the person who told you? No. They've been given the information and tools to find more information.

even while you yourself obviously could not live up to such an unrealistic standard.


The standard I want is "trying" to do better. I want people to actually try to reduce their impact. That's it. It's not a high standard.

And simply, if you think propaganda can influence everyone enough that it makes changing individuals impossible, why do you think that convincing them to vote differently is possible?

Manufacturers would be making smaller vehicles due to regulations, people couldn't choose monstrosities, roads would get slimmer in new development, public transportation would be built better


It is a tad ironic that you talk about the influence of propaganda and are still stuck on the idea that people need cars.

. If you can't, how the hell are you expecting other people to for the issues you find most important?


Climate change is the single most important issue, bar none. There's no reasonable argument that can be made that the vast majority of humanity dying is the worst possible outcome, unless you go for an anti human perspective. I don't expect people to be perfect. I expect them to try.

I did not watch your video as I'm already well aware of the history of car lobbying in America. How people allowed car companies to do away with public transit. How they allowed propaganda to perpetuate. I don't believe people blindly believing clearly false propaganda are faultless

in reply to Fredthefishlord

I expect them to care about the potential mass death of most humans and environments that has been blasting on the news and taught to most for decades … and I think that’s reasonable.


I promise you there are topics more important to other people than that.

Many, reasonably, care about the wave of fascism poised to severely harm them, their families, their loved ones or their fellow countryman, a more immediate threat.

Many, reasonably, care about the insane unaffordability of housing due to corruption, corporate landlords, landlords in general, and houses being treated as investment vehicles.

Many, reasonably are worried about the massively accelerating wealth inequality and the disaster this spells for them and their future generations.

Many....

The point is, every single one of these points is more not less important than the point you care about primarily to many people. They aren't wrong or stupid for having different priorities to you.

I would even go so far as saying that I think it's foolish to value something so large scale and existential like global collapse over the next few hundred years due to climate change than a lot of the societal elements that contribute to it.

What does it matter what climate future humans live in if they're enslaved or being murdered by fascists?

What does it matter if your descendants don't exist because they can't afford to live.

If someone tells you to kill a guy and you do, does it make sense to exclusively blame the person who told you? No. They’ve been given the information and tools to find more information.


Again, many people think the same thing for you, and they're just as right, yet completely uselessly so as you are.

This is purely a self masturbatory blame assignment rather than a useful piece of information to accomplish goals.

Worse than that, it chooses to ignorantly fundamentally misunderstand how people work, yet expect to change what it doesn't understand.

The standard I want is “trying” to do better. I want people to actually try to reduce their impact. That’s it. It’s not a high standard.


There you are again, missing the point and it feels like it has to be purposeful at this point.

Many people try to do better but can't be as focused on this as you are because they're being better in areas you are not being better in.

And simply, if you think propaganda can influence everyone enough that it makes changing individuals impossible, why do you think that convincing them to vote differently is possible?


This is an obvious and silly strawman.

I literally list why directly convincing people on this topic is less important and likely to work than impacting political systems that are used to uphold the propaganda points that cause these problems in the first place.

You're slamming into a brick wall rather than trying to pick the lock on the door.

It is a tad ironic that you talk about the influence of propaganda and are still stuck on the idea that people need cars.


Its crazy to be this ignorant and with a bad faith point to boot.

Carcentricity has made it such that many people do in fact need cars.

This is not a problem. that can be solved quickly.

You pretending that acknowledging this reality means that I can't conceive of anything else despite that obviously not being the case is you being dishonest in discussion, which at that point, why are you arguing? Why bother?

Climate change is the single most important issue, bar none.


An extremely naive and privileged perspective.

You're worrying about the future of the species like that is an entity that can feel pain. No, it's an idea, a prediction. It's something that absolutely is not the top concern of the people struggling and facing real issues to their lives right now at this very moment. Just about the only people I can imagine could possibly hold this opinion are out of touch well to do people.

I did not watch your video as I’m already well aware


You are clearly missing a lot, so if you actually walked the walk, you'd watch it and see what you're missing, because in this conversation alone you've made it clear you don't understand how deep or effective it has been, what policies have been put in place due to it, etc.

North American roads are the way they are due to it.

I don’t believe people blindly believing clearly false propaganda are faultless


You are so impossibly stuck up your own ass, sniffing your own farts.

There are literally thousands if not millions of you people on every conceivable issue under the sun, and you'd all hate each other if you met, because you all are so lacking in empathy and perspective that you'd all be befuddled and enraged you didn't all center around the single issues you all think are most important bar none. You'd all be irrate that the others dare "blindly believe this" and "foolishly follow that".

Until you people realize what a problem this mentality is, you'll literally never make substantive change.

in reply to Credibly_Human

You're worrying about the future of the species like that is an entity that can feel pain. No, it's an idea, a prediction. It's something that absolutely is not the top concern of the people struggling and facing real issues to their lives right now at this very moment. Just about the only people I can imagine could possibly hold this opinion are out of touch well to do people.


Good to know you have no idea what you're talking about. Climate change is already causing serious deaths, now. It's not just some future issue. It's genuinely horrifying that you don't understand that. It isn't just Future generations. It isn't abstract concepts. It's my generation that will be dying because of this.

Many, reasonably are worried about the massively accelerating wealth inequality and the disaster this spells for them and their future generations.


Because climate change won't.... ??

Yes, fascism is important. But not nearly as important as fighting climate change. There isn't a future to fight for if climate change isn't blocked, you do understand that, right?

This is not a problem. that can be solved quickly.


It could be solved in under a decade if people cared.

You don't seem to actually understand how dangerous climate change is presently. You still see it as an abstract future rather than an awful and worsening present

You are clearly missing a lot, so if you actually walked the walk, you'd watch it and see what you're missing, because in this conversation alone you've made it clear you don't understand how deep or effective it has been, what policies have been put in place due to it, etc.


I see what happened when voters and people actually cared. The cities changed, improved. It proves that propaganda is not some magical convincing force that forces people to think one way, the way you pretend it is.

in reply to Fredthefishlord

Good to know you have no idea what you’re talking about. Climate change is already causing serious deaths, now.


Far less than the issues listed to the people affected.

Climate change deathes currently are largely avoidable and it comes up as a relatively small source of death.

You're nitpicking here to try to ignore the point.

It’s my generation that will be dying because of this.


Nope. No one alive today will witness any kind of apocalypse generation killing event.

Because climate change won’t… ??


You must worry about your house fire first before you fear the flood next month.

Yes, fascism is important. But not nearly as important as fighting climate change.


This is the type of "I'm a priveleged cisgendered straight white person so the marginalized people can be fed to the machine" ass comment I would expect from you.

They'll come for you eventually too bud.

There isn’t a future to fight for if climate change isn’t blocked, you do understand that, right?


Hysterics don't make you right. That is in more than 100 years when anyone talking right now is long dead.

Fascism could have you or I in a death camp within our lives, or trigger nuclear war, given it actually did the last time it flared up this seriously, except this time a shit ton of countries have nukes. Nukes? Talk about climate changing.

It could be solved in under a decade if people cared.


You continue to think from a perspective of blame rather than pragmatism.

People are the biggest hurdle for literally every major problem. Learning how the general public is propagandized too, what regulations reinforce and or strengthen the problem, how and which politicians are bought and paid off for to fight the problem and more.

The root cause and key is making the Overton window shift left. It is therefore the biggest problem, even to you, by being in the way for solving your problem as the actual biggest problem.

You don’t seem to actually understand how dangerous climate change is presently. You still see it as an abstract future rather than an awful and worsening present


I completely understand it. You clearly do not understand how bad the other problems I listed are.

You care far more about the rock we float on, than the people on said rock. Everything you say is in service of the rock rather than the people. What has more influence in peoples lives right now? All the things I mentioned.

Other people have good reason to be focused on those first.

I see what happened when voters and people actually cared. The cities changed, improved.


Oh which American cities are these? Are they per chance small mostly urban areas with progressive leaders?

I mean fuck it, I won't be coy, we all see Mamdani. Somehow you won't connect the dot's though.

It proves that propaganda is not some magical convincing force that forces people to think one way, the way you pretend it is.


This is once again you doing mental gymnastics to pretend that blaming people will solve the problem any at all. Blaming people does not work.

in reply to Credibly_Human

Ah. So you don't actually understand the reality of extreme heat and cold events. That... That makes sense how you wouldn't care. You've failed to do basic research.

This is the type of "I'm a priveleged cisgendered straight white person so the marginalized people can be fed to the machine" ass comment I would expect from you.


If I meant it as "welcome fascism" , which I don't. Fascism should still be fought. You pulling out the "privileged" bullshit again is hilarious when you don't understand basic science

in reply to Fredthefishlord

There was no substance in this reply. You haven't shown knowledge of anything, and havent addressed any criticisms levied.
in reply to Credibly_Human

Climate change deathes currently are largely avoidable and it comes up as a relatively small source of death.


I'd like to see you "avoid" a wet bulb event in a 3rd world country. These have started becoming an increasingly common occurrence in the last decade or so. Climate change also disproportionately affects poorer countries, the ones no one cares about. Entire archipelagos projected to disappear in decades. So fuck off with your "caring about climate change is for privileged people".

Nope. No one alive today will witness any kind of apocalypse generation killing event.

Hysterics don't make you right. That is in more than 100 years when anyone talking right now is long dead.


You do realize that there's people alive today that will live in 2100 right? And that they will be in their 80's (those who can talk today), not 100+. Have you seen any graphs on what the temperatures and water levels will be at the current pace? Even optimistic scenarios are hellish.

You are factually wrong, no matter how confidently you say it. I am not insulting your intelligence for your opinions like you seem to do in almost every comment, just informing that you do not understand climate change like you claim to "completely" do. I guess what you actually mean is that it will get bad after you are dead, so it doesn't really matter.

in reply to floquant

We're clearly at a unproductive point in this conversation where you are slinging accusations and we clearly are at an impasse. I think your position ignores the valid perspective of others, you think it outweighs every other position even from people who try to do better just as you claim to.

That seems to be it. I can't convince you, and you certainly haven't convinced me.

in reply to SaveTheTuaHawk

Bullshit. Costs absolutely influence shopping behavior. If you drive it out of an affordable range while providing viable, more environmentally friendly, alternatives. People will be forced to change
in reply to Credibly_Human

We have to pick the least bad option and then try to make them better because that's just the way shit works


No we don't, and no it isn't. That's how the suppression of radical change works. I am not saying that anything short of utopia is not worth pursuing, just that I don't see why we shouldn't start from that and then work down to a realistic compromise, rather than starting from the bad options that are given to us. There are other choices, if you can look further than your nose.

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to floquant

No we don’t, and no it isn’t. That’s how the suppression of radical change works.


You aren't doing jack shit of this radical change you spout on about. You don’t actually want to help, so you come up with excuses to do nothing while feeling better than those who do because your ideas all start with someone else moving first.

I am not saying that anything short of utopia is not worth pursuing, just that I don’t see why we shouldn’t start from that and then work down to a realistic compromise


Because you don't have the leverage or organization to start there. Instead you must start by slowly working to put out the fire and getting your fellow countryman to see the benefits of socialist policy.

rather than starting from the bad options that are given to us.


You exist in this system, not outside of it. You start here for that is reality, not fantasy. Id love to start from the position of being the rich using my wealth to sway policy. It's not reality though.

There are other choices, if you can look further than your nose.


List one that doesn't start with some fantastical revolution you aren't organizing and aren't willing to risk your life in as a first mover

If the answer is about forming a new party in a country that has winner takes all or first past the post, I fear you've not thought it through.

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to Credibly_Human

You aren't doing jack shit of this radical change you spout on about. You don’t actually want to help, so you come up with excuses to do nothing while feeling better than those who do because your ideas all start with someone else moving first.


Uh, source? Do I know you?

Because you don't have the leverage or organization to start there. Instead you must start by slowly working to put out the fire and getting your fellow countryman to see the benefits of socialist policy.


The leverage is numbers. 8 billion humans against what, a stadium of people? And the organization at this point is just basic survival instinct?? We're on a burning planet and being told that yes we need change, but we also need to wageslave while doing it. I do agree on the "teaching" part btw.

You exist in this system, not outside of it. You start here for that is reality, not fantasy. Id love to start from the position of being the rich using my wealth to sway policy. It's not reality though.


The system is something that monkeys invented. I "exist in it" in the sense in the sense that I am contemporary to it, yes. I exist in what you could call the universe, nature, or reality.

List one that doesn't start with some fantastical revolution you aren't organizing and aren't willing to risk your life in as a first mover


Nice try glowie. I just know what has already happened in the past and can try to extrapolate. And again, I don't know what basis you have to speak of my character.

If the answer is about forming a new party in a country that has winner takes all or first past the post, I fear you've not thought it through.


Jesus christ, is that the most radical, outside-of-the system take you could think of for global policy change?

in reply to floquant

Uh, source? Do I know you?


You don't. That's why its up to you to make your point when making statements like this.

I've seen no such actions so without any particular claims, this is just fantasy posting.

The leverage is numbers.


I literally address the fact that you don't have said leverage and wont get it any time soon in the very thing that you quote.

No one is being convinced by your angsty, snarky, online leftist purity raging.

And the organization at this point is just basic survival instinct?


If you think basic survival instincts are in any way conducive to long term goals... I don't even have a clever retort. That's just an insane thing to think.

We’re on a burning planet and being told that yes we need change, but we also need to wageslave while doing it.


You aren't told, thats the reality.

People stop doing their jobs, without tremendous planning ahead, and they die.

That's reality.

You are nowhere near having the capacity for a general strike, and you're losing capacity as the tech feudal lords clamp down on the means of communication, and as people on decentralized platforms are notoriously completely impossible to deal with and hyper idealistic.

Nice try glowie.


See, it's childish bullshit like this which means we can't make progress.

My point is clearly that nothing remotely like these fantastical ideas of an underground revolution are actually happening. We've seen these grumblings online for fucking decades.

You'd think you'd have literally anything, like non personally, to show for it. Instead its nothing but talk.

Some random not hyper online dude shooting a healthcare ceo in the back because his back hurt and he was hard done by them is the closest you've come to that, and it wasn't you.

I just know what has already happened in the past and can try to extrapolate.


You are remembering selectively, and remembering out of context, because the US is not WW2 germany. They're WW2 germany with nukes and a military multiples of times more formidable than the next multiple combined.

There is no coalition of countries currently equipped to take them on.

More than that, those countries are all having similar problems with right wing groups flaring up.

More than that still, in recent history, when there have been revolts, they haven't switched to socialism, or even just more socialism than before in notable ways. They've mostly just switched to more capitalism, supported by the US.

And again, I don’t know what basis you have to speak of my character.


Because once again, the online fringe you represent simply has no track record to speak of. They simply have not done anything for decades, and if they had any teeth, there would be something, anything to show for it.

Jesus christ, is that the most radical, outside-of-the system take you could think of for global policy change?


No, it isn't the previous thing you absolutely do not have the guts or organization for is. This is the accomplishable thing that would not accomplish the final goals and instead would be handing right wing fascists the long term victory on a silver platter.

in reply to floquant

The leverage is numbers. 8 billion humans against what, a stadium of people?


The idea that 8 billion people would be on your side is the forefront of showing why what you're suggesting is closer to fantasy than reality. More people than you care to admit are straight up fascist

in reply to Fredthefishlord

It is not a "my side" thing. I do believe that 8 billion humans have tackling climate change in their best interest, whether they know it or not.
in reply to floquant

Of course they do. But what's in their best interest doesn't matter for leverage. For leverage, it matters how many truly believe that. And you'll find that the amount of people who truly understand how bad it's getting is vanishingly small. Even most liberals and hell, even leftists only care about it on a surface level. They're not willing to lose the benefits they get from not caring about the environment.
in reply to Credibly_Human

We’re talking about a socialist revolution here. The electoral process of the capitalist rulers of the United States is hardly relevant.
in reply to FlyingCircus

Its completely relevant to anyone who isn't a child.

You can't magically have this whimsical revolution you dream of.

Its 100% a "you first" type of deal where you absolutely are not willing to be first, and don't realize you have a whole lot of the population you'd need to convince first, and until you do, you need to face the hard realities of the system you live in, and mitigate the damage.

in reply to Credibly_Human

The "boring, unfun, hard things that actually make a difference" have already been tried in the last 50 years. It has not made a difference. The only thing that can make a difference, as history has shown us time and time and time again, is a revolution
in reply to merdaverse

If you can't see the difference where we have gay marriage, for a while had notably less discrimination, a massive improvement in workers rights, improvements to social security nets etc, I don't know what to tell you.

More than that, this childish opinion misses that you haven't tried this.

You've constantly swapped between democrats and republicans, and purity tested so hard that democrats have basically stopped seeing you as a real force for change within their party.

You have only tore down your chances while actual progressives keep trying, only to be disappointed that you're there as a roadblock to your shared goals.

To top this all off, you clearly do not understand that you not only need 3 of 4 branches of government and definitely need a super majority senate (Which you haven't had usably in 25 years) but you also need enough progressives within the party to sway their goals away from just the wishes of their corporate donors.

You want to pretend that we have tried this, but we haven't tried jack shit, because of folks like you.

More than that, you haven't tried any other method either, so your comment ends up boiling down to "lets try nothing because I don't like, nor do I want to try the 'boring, unfun, hard things that actually make a difference'"

in reply to DupaCycki

The target of staying under 1,5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average temperature within the century was set less than 10 years ago. It was considered ambitious but possible back then, and so many world leaders and governments agreeing to it in the Paris climate accord of 2015, was considered a major political achievement.

However, there have been uncountable political setbacks since. Aside from Donald Trump's two election wins and subsequent horror shows, we've gone through a pandemic that brought insane financial, monetary politics and crushing inflation, the Ukraine war and the advent of power hungry AI (that totally will be good for something and ain't no god dammed bubble, seriously stop calling it a bubble, bro, it's the future). All of which has reduced climate change to a niche topic that don't hold any sway over political elections in the rich countries responsible for the brunt of greenhouse gas emissions (directly or indirectly).

Less than 10 years ago we thought it would be possible to stay below that target over the coming 85 years. Less than 10 years later that target is declared dead by the secretary general of the UN.. Was it realistic then? Well, a lot of planning and climate policy has involved exceeding 1,5 degrees and then using massive deployments of imaginary future technologies to bring the climate back. Not exactly prudent reasoning.

Some countries are still sticking to their plans, kinda. Norway are making headways installing carbon capture technology on their off-shore oil rigs (!!!) so that they can keep drilling for fossil fuels with a smaller impact on their own reported national emissions.

in reply to TipsyMcGee

Not taking away from your larger point but mostly not inflation but profit taking. Early in COVID corporations holding functional monopolies learned demand was inelastic and commenced to price gouge.
in reply to DupaCycki

no, rhetoric only meant to motivate by fear turnt around into demotivation: helplessness.

look up Climate Clock to see the exact year.

in reply to silence7

Guys. Chill. The world will be fine. The planet will go on.

Humanity, on the other hand, is fucked.

in reply to Mediocre_Bard

That depends on how you define world. I would include all life on the planet to be part of the world. We are actively killing biodiversity, wiping species from the earth, all from our direct negative contributions to the world.

So yea, the planet and life overall will find a way, but not all life that happened to live in the same era (and after) as humans

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to UnfairUtan

billions of years for microorganisms and lifeforms to make the big volcanic rock with acidic oceans turn pleasant and habitable. next civiliation occurs closer to the implosion of the sun and has material like plastic in theie periodic table...
in reply to bluemoon

nope, even all plastic particles will have been cracked down at the point where they come up with funny diagrams.
in reply to silence7

Of course we did bro, AI (or at least, the current use of the term) is here and no multinational conglomerate gives a fuck about the environment any more
Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to Lyra_Lycan

It's not even about AI. It's just the next growth bubble to milk, there will be the next after.

It never stops.

in reply to silence7

Over the course of the history of the planet, there have been several extinction events, and then over time, new life evolves from what remains creating new biodiversity. The only difference is that the mass extinction is being caused by an apex predator, (humans,) instead of a meteor, or volcano. The earth will incorporate plastic into the new ecology. It's already happening. We will go extinct by making the planet incompatible with human life; other life will exist and thrive.
in reply to Washedupcynic

as you point out, it's human made and thus fails your comparison. it could have been avoided.
in reply to foenkyfjutschah

Despite being human beings, we are still living organisms that evolved. Our species evolved intelligence which led to agriculture, industry, the industrial revolution, and our current ecological shitshow. In theory, we possess the intelligence to change course and attempt to fix things, but our collective greed and hubris will ensure that the capitalists end up ruling over a pile of smoldering ash from their bunkers. I'm not trying to downplay how badly we as a species have fucked up or how much damage we have done, just that evolution will continue despite us, even though we are the ones that pushed things in a certain direction.
in reply to Washedupcynic

Your apathy and mental phlegm makes me furious. We don't "go extinct", billions and billions of sentient beings will suffer greatly for centuries to come because of it. More so with every bit of warming we are adding or preventing. It's far from over, this is barely beginning. So stop this doomer bullshit and take responsibility for your life and your actions.
Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to silence7

Oh, the UN. The international united-circus organization that no country gives a fuck about its laws or abide its rullings because the US government, represented by its pyscopathic oligarchs and paid politicians, can ~~veeto~~ shit on anything they want as long as more data centers, more fossil-fuelled wars, larger militry budget, ... make them a little richer.
Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to answersplease77

The UN is a circus organization with no power by design. Because it's primary purpose is a keeping every country at the table no matter what for diplomacy, to reduce the odds of another world war
in reply to Fredthefishlord

Always makes me laugh reading stuff like the comment you replied to. The UN isn't a stick to beat countries with, it's primarily a round table to get otherwise-adversaries to talk.
in reply to silence7

The good news is that it is still something we can deal with. I mean, to just give up is to let the current "owners of the world win" ( billionaires and gang).
in reply to flango

And how do we stop those billionaires?

The way that I see it, they won't stop by themselves. We either get politicians to finally stop them (highly doubtful) or the world citizens stop them by force.

What other solution is there?

in reply to Phoenixz

I mean honestly a fundamental restructuring of democracy in the US. We need a 3rd party in the US that can hijack the Democratic party apparatus without falling victim to its trappings in order to crack the first-past-the-post system; without that, capital has the oppressive power of the top 5 most funded militaries in human history. The US squats on any country that even thinks of not playing nicely with capital, and without that there can be no resistance to climate change.

Beyond that, you really just need to prepare. Blah blah, mutual aid, community defense, etc. I'm not gonna bore you with what you know, just reiterate that it WILL help when shit hits the fan. I guarantee you when your kids are getting conscripted into the water wars, you're gonna want to have enough community presence to push back.

in reply to silence7

Uh huh, that was by design

Those Paris climate accords were literally useless, as it was nothing more but a kind suggestion.

Even when we would have made hard contracts we know that half the countries out there would have failed for a variety of reasons (most of them being a variety of "ah but I want to be re-elected and if I try to save the world, things will be slightly harder for my base, so I sign for yes, and then do no")

This was just a "well let's give it a try" and the US immediately borked out with Trump because now it's cool to have mentally deficient adults controlling countries.

Nobody with a brain ever believed that we'd his that 1.5 degree limit. Ik actually fairly confident that we'll get a two degree limit, which we'll crash right through, then we'll start producing CO2 harder and faster than ever before just to be sure we can take straight through the 3 and 4 degree limits that we'll set because politicians don't give a fuck about any of this, they only care about their reelection and the populace of countries that matter either can't do anything about it (hello China, how is Winnie today?) or just too fucking dumb to even understand the issue (hello USA, how is the Cheeto today?)

I honestly believe that we're in humanities end-times. Not the biblical ones, those were fairytales, but the real one that humanity made for itself. There is no one to blame but us. I think GenX will live to see how humanity dies out, because nobody will fix this obvious problem with obvious solutions, everyone who matters can only think about themselves so enjoy the days that we have left, all.

in reply to silence7

Money buys power and influence and politicians react more to that than their own constituents. When money can bend reality and get people to vote against their own interests just to keep the status quo, there'll be no change.

I mean, for all the things we do right we get stuff like the Bezos wedding where everyone arrives via private jet or COP25 where everyone also arrives by private jet to discuss the climate.

We have Greta Thunberg who addressed the world leaders and voiced our discontent at their lack of action. Her views are not unique and are a reflection of many but yet, despite laying the truth bare and shaming leaders for their inaction, power and influence labels her as whatever they want to discredit her words and influence.

So, if we want to reverse things and change, we need to target the rich and tax them, shame them, eat them... Whatever it takes and only then will we be able to do something net positive. Doing 'our part' is not enough when the top 1% literally offsets all of our efforts everyday.

in reply to silence7

It just seems crazy. Normal, sane, hardworking people of the world are begging for governments and corporations to stop killing us through pollution, but the rich don't give a fuck. There won't be consequences for them. There won't be a reckoning. It just feels like they'll stubbornly punish all of us for not being born wealthy like they were.
in reply to hotdogcharmer

This is where I envy religious people: I would love to believe that proper justice will be served eventually. But I can't, I have to watch the injustices and cannot do anything about it.
in reply to hotdogcharmer

And the corpos and govs cry incessantly about not being given new victims to exploit and discard. The entitlement is disgusting.
in reply to silence7

It's over. Even if every single person and corporation did an about-face on this right now, inertia alone would carry us into the consequences this was intended to avoid. Enjoy it while it lasts.
in reply to bitjunkie

If everyone got together and came to the decision to fix the planet, it would probably still be possible, even though it'll likely get to a point where going outside is a complication. Generations, to be sure.

Though of course, we're never all going to agree on how to go about it, so you might be right.

in reply to silence7

We all know we are fucked. I am living in the moment till it all ends and never having children. Humanity will destroy this planet long before it changes course.
in reply to PalmTreeIsBestTree

Covid convinced me we're done.

We couldn't even get people to wear a fucking mask to protect themselves from a disease they saw killing their neighbors. Shit - we can't get them to allow other people to wear a mask.

in reply to chiliedogg

The part that absolutely kills me about this is that there were anti-maskers during the 1918 "spanish flu" pandemic. This suggest that with two valid examples that this is a bad idea, people still chose to not do it. It also suggests that we're still the same society that we were 100 years ago.

history.com/articles/1918-span…

in reply to chiliedogg

COVID (or more specifically, the response to it) was the turning point for me as well. The realization that we would not work together to manage a crisis.

If people won't do the easy shit, they sure as hell won't do the more difficult things that are needed to address climate collapse.

in reply to UltraGiGaGigantic

Mass extinction event is all ready happening so yeah
Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to silence7

The next topic under this Post is that Texas sues Tylenol because of autism claims.

We're fucking doomed. Thats what I personally think and I really Wish and Hope that I'm wrong.

in reply to silence7

“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell”
in reply to Gary Ghost

Consumer-capitalism. Neither is great, but their combination is truly horrifying.
in reply to Gary Ghost

The old Soviet Union's environmental record wasn't great. And environmentalism was very low on the Dengist priority list.

Capitalism incentivizes industrial growth. But it was the "free" real estate of the colonial era and the massive surpluses of the industrial era that incentivized capitalism and created the illusion of unlimited economic expansion.

The problem is one of economic planning. Can we, as an intelligent advanced civilization, collectively manage the scarce resources of our planet? Or will a handful of individuals continue to divide and conquer the proletariat mass? Simply going socialist isn't enough. Bookchin will tell you that. Hell, Kropotkin will tell you that.

It isn't enough to merely establish a central and democratically managed local economy. We need a world wide organization capable of balancing the current demands against future resource constraints on the scale of centuries. And we need it to be equitably operated by a planetary consortium of committed socialist ideologues, not a handful of post-war juntas that run one another into the ground in another Cold War.

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to silence7

Whatever tiny hope of correcting this died when Trump was re-elected. It's been game over for a while now. That's not to say we shouldn't try to make a difference where we can, but it's too late for Earth.
in reply to JoshsJunkDrawer

Whatever tiny hope of correcting this died when Trump was re-elected.


The bulk of greenhouse gas emissions are occurring outside the US. Americans have a far higher per-capita output but a relatively small gross population. Even then, the median American's emissions pale beside that of their billionaire neighbors.

If global change comes, it is going to have to come through the BRIICS, where the bulk of new industrial activity is taking place and the vast majority of emissions already occurs. Trump decoupling the US economy from the rest of the world and his inadvertent quest to tank the fuck out of the US consumer economy is (quixotically) working in favor of these ends.

It’s been game over for a while now.


The game isn't over, its simply changing. Areas of the world that were habitable will no longer be habitable. Mass migration began in earnest 20 years ago, at the outset of the Iraq War and near-total destabilization of the Middle East. Population growth globally has staled out due to exploding cost of living and economically engineered social isolation of the working class. Foodstuffs that we once considered staples - beef and almonds and oranges - are increasingly categorized as luxury goods.

But we've been in the Holocene Extinction Era for over 200 years. This is the sixth great extinction event in planetary history. And through it all, humans flourished. Hell, the advent of modern nitrogen fertilizers have made plant life flourish. The Earth isn't going anywhere. Humans aren't going anywhere (certainly not Mars, given how much more inhospitable it is than even the most nightmarish climate change scenarios). Life as we know it and human engineering as we've managed it are both far more stubborn and persistent than you're giving it credit for. We can endure at a much more efficient level of biome utility than we currently employ. We can persist at a scale of hundreds of millions rather than tens of billions.

But we're going to see sweeping changes. Really ugly ones. What we're seeing in Gaza today is the roadmap for the future of the Global South, unless they can organize and resist a modern western eugenics regime. There is going to be more war and more bombing and more industrial annihilation and more sophisticated efforts by one group of humans to massacre others.

That's probably good for the climate, long term. Not good for us or our kids or our grandkids, though.

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to silence7

The world is being run by conservatives and fascists.

The world will not change course, humanity is borked.

in reply to silence7

weve known this for awhile and we know 2 is already unavoidable. We are going backwards when we have to be taking the most extreme actions we can to just slow it down.
in reply to silence7

Yeah sure, tell that to the billionaires that are actively ruining the planet.