Technology will be the solution. Genetically engineered bacteria and nanotechnology will solve the issue before 2060. Regardless of how much fear mongering you see around you, life goes on and always will. The only thing you can do is tune it out.
Maybe it could, but it won't without a political solution. It's pretty much a lost cause.
the government-corporations locked us into this path 40 years ago. The war is lost, it was lost before we were even born, all we can do is weather the storm and try to make a life worth living in the skeleton of a dead civilization.
>is earth as we know it really salvageable
no. The Earth of 100 years ago is already irrecoverably gone. The best we could hope for is to minimize the impact.>>421
are there realistic plans for accomplishing this task? I know that people are working on these projects academically, what do they think about feasibility? How realistic do you think it is that government-corporations(or whatever replaces them in the event of political upheaval) will seriously pursue these projects?
We can expect famine and plague in the next few decades, particularly in third-world countries. Any plan for addressing climate change and ecological decline must address those problems, in the here and now. This isn't something that's sometime in the future, this is here now, it's happening right now.
>>423 >are there realistic plans for accomplishing this task?
What do you mean by this? That's like forming a military plan based on weaponry that doesn't exist yet. The technology definitely will come though. There's nothing nature can do that can't be replicated. If you want to know the specifics of what's being researched, you can look it up yourself.>How realistic do you think it is that government-corporations(or whatever replaces them in the event of political upheaval) will seriously pursue these projects?
You can't collect taxes if all of your taxpayers are dead, so I don't see why they wouldn't. >particularly in third-world countries
I don't really care. Some people will suffer one way or another because their group is incapable of creating a self-sufficent society. Leaving them to their own devices is the only good way to deal with that. I bet fifty bucks I can go the rest of my life without ever even noticing there's anything going on and also within my lifetime the problem gets resolved.
You know? I've thought about trying to leave this planet for various months now, but the technological and intellectual requirements are totally beyond me or any group I could ever reunite.
I hope I can survive, but it will be a mess. Wars for water are coming and this country has no chances of winning.
It is also sad that people around me don't give a damn about this destiny that is approaching us, maybe leaving the country will solve some problems temporarily.
>>421> The only thing you can do is tune it out.
It doesn't matter if technological solutions are possible if they won't be implemented for econnomic reasons. Countries would rather fight over what's left than come to any agreement to work together.
Please go and be an American somewhere else.
Man made global warming is a huge scam. All the scientists that fund money to stop global warming, all of them are rich, have big mansions, and do everything they claim causes global warming themselves!
The earth might be getting hot, but its not human made. Its already been proven that there are other points in history in which the earth also got inanely warm, then it just… wen't back to normal. The real problem here is that we don't know that much about how climate works.
The results of human intervention are clear, no need for CNN or science magazines to tell us that. If you think it's all a big scam, you either are too optimistic or are purposely alienated about nature landscapes in your area.
Here in Brazil a LOT of perennial river turned into intermittent cuz mining and deforestation. It's easy too notice that, older generations can tell about the landscapes of the past, old pictures, etc; and it's easy to tell the damage this change caused to wildlife and human life lol.
It's just a quick example. I could go on and on and on about other soykaf Mining, Agribusiness and other Industries do here in Brazil. Just because you have an opinion that 'global warming is ok', that doesn't mean all environment topics and discussion are worthless.
If it's occurring naturally, that's even worse. If it were caused by us we would have a chance to change something. In your scenario, there is nothing we can do.
Don't try to do a social cause, or think that politicians are going to change something create a bill that will solve or make it stop for some time, some part of climate change is due to natural causes other are due to human doing stuff. Trying to change people or make anything shiny and new in politics are not going to stop this, even projects like Project Venus are going to have terrible results like we already know from people that try to plan everything thinking that "this time is going to be different", you can't order chaos in large scale and change everyone culture to follow a plan to change the world, what you can do is be maximum off grid, start learning how to do stuff (like gardening, hidroponics, find water, desalinization, mining and how to use components like old computers, TVs and stuff like that) and do whatever it takes to be in the comfiest place at the right time that soykaf gets harder and harder to maintain, try to live in sea or try to create a bunker, say to people how to become offgrid (sometimes is a worth investment, because you pay less taxes and in the long term is saving a lot of resources and money to do other stuff and create projects) trying to solve this is the hardest thing you can ever imagine and is not some guru of architecture that is going to do it, don't be stupid and try to do stuff that really make you a less resources hungry human.
>>424>The technology definitely will come though. There's nothing nature can do that can't be replicated.
so basically your solution is "have faith!"
lots of experts – people who literally research this stuff for a living – don't think humanity is anywhere near such a technical solution. Why should I think so?
>You can't collect taxes if all of your taxpayers are dead, so I don't see why they wouldn't.
because they can make more in the short term by extracting resources, burning fossil fuels, and doing nothing to help anyone. Short-term profits dominate long-term sustainability, it's what got us into this mess in the first place.
>I don't really care. Some people will suffer one way or another because their group is incapable of creating a self-sufficent society. Leaving them to their own devices is the only good way to deal with that. I bet fifty bucks I can go the rest of my life without ever even noticing there's anything going on and also within my lifetime the problem gets resolved.
you don't care about people suffering? If you live in the "first world" you rely on them to make all your soykaf. Even if you're some kind of psychopath, you should care.>>429
You're part of the problem m8>>431>If it were caused by us we would have a chance to change something.
see, I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding that a lot of people have. Just because we caused something doesn't mean we can uncause it.
First, you're assuming the solution will be expensive, which it wont necessarily be and stay once made plausible, then you assume governments are the only people who are capable of solving the problem. Even if all the governments of the world with enough resources are dumb enough to choose not to, there's no reason private companies wouldn't want to do something. Most people with power aren't THAT incompetent and short-sigted, in countries that aren't soykaf that is.
You also think the issue can only be solved if every nation works together, which is a completely bullsoykaf notion pushed on people by the media. A healthy, competent nation can solve its problems on its own.
The climate is global, it cannot be solved locally. It's a global problem, not a single nation's. A single country might mitigate it but it cannot solve it without also solving it for everyone else.
No private company will solve it since the climate cannot be appropriated.
Every country is soykaf.
You're right that one country would be solving it for everyone. I don't think there will need to be global cooperation.>No private company will solve it since the climate cannot be appropriated.
Companies/rich people already do things they really don't have to and can't benefit from. Being the company that saves the world is great pr too.>Every country is soykaf.
It's on a scale. Some of them aren't as incompetent as you're making them all out to be.
A company doing the better thing when it's in opposition of a clearly more profitable option is a very rare exception. I could list a thousand blatant ethical disregards for each 'good' deed, and even then often those good deeds are only good on the surface. This goes for rich philanthropists too, who too often donate to put a band-aid on a problem, yet do very little to fix the root cause.
But maybe the problem is too big. Our economic system is one where there is no incentive for an entity to do something good for goodness sake. Stakeholders are not there for the good, they're there for profit. And it's so skullfuckingly easy to just twist a shiny turd to positive PR.
Worse than that is that globalism gives zero incentive to care about the environment from which resources are extracted. If a business creates a wasteland out of a community, then all they have to do is move somewhere else and continue. Politicians not only can be bought, but much of social and political infrastructure relies on private corporations to operate; do not bite the hand that feeds. If the people or government brings any effective resistance to the global capitalist free market system, they can expect to be sued in a secret court, and/or become 'regime changed', and/or if it's a small group of people they will be assassinated or their group will become COINTELPRO'd by agents to crumble them from the inside… nevermind the inescapable all-seeing eyes of the NSA, 2600/Mossad, GCHQ, FSB, MSS, etc.
The best thing we can do, as far as I can tell, is do everything we can to not be beholden by the system that caused this apocalypse in the first place. Learn to become as self-sufficient and off the grid as possible, and encourage others to do the same. Support and participate in environmental volunteering. Finally get comfortable with sacrificing your own comfort and sticking to physical and ideological fundamentals. God knows I have a long way to go, but if 1% of us make an effort towards this then I'm sure humanity will be fine, at least if tomorrow's Earth doesn't kill us first.
Your optimism is admirable but you are giving us no reason to believe that it will be suddenly magically solved in the last minute as you seem to believe. Exxon knew about the coming climate catastrophe for decades but they calculated that with the melting polar ice they could more cheaply extract oil from the north and decided that the potential profit from this was more important than the future of humankind. So instead of doing the right thing, to this day they are still funding lobbyists to deny the very thing that their own scientists confirmed and spread disinformation campaigns. These are the people we are up against. They will not back down and they will not save humanity out of boredom or some kind of savior complex.
>>435> you're assuming the solution will be expensive, which it wont necessarily be and stay once made plausible
What solution is that?
> A healthy, competent nation can solve its problems on its own.
Enact environmental change in your own country and the same offenders close shop and move to te third world and continue to pollute air and water there. Guess what? Air and water doesn not respect national boundaries.
I don't really know what to say. You may be right. I can't predict the future, but this is just the way I expect things to play out based off of what I know about people. Similar crises have happened in the past like the over usage of lead, which was actually detectable in artic ice, and that was successfully mitigated, despite financial intersts standing in the way. >What solution is that?
Assuming the Earth doesn't die too quickly, alternative fuels like fusion will become so much more efficent than nucelar energy and gasoline, that using those instead will naturally happen. Somebody is going to offer those alternatives and the people/government(s) will prefer it. After that, genetically engineered microbes, plants, other innovations will gradually reduce greenhouse gases. There's also the option of geoengineering to forcefully change the climate regardless of greenhouse gasses. I wouldn't know, but it might also be possible to isolate local biomes from global ones.
Frankly, even if by the time the solution comes about, a large chunk of the Earth's species go extinct in the wild and third world nations suffer massive casualties, I really don't care as long as I'm fine in the end.
>>442> no reason to believe that it will be suddenly magically solved in the last minute
Agreed. I mean, we're already relatively within the last minute, and reversing this climate apocalypse is not one
thing. That's like saying, "Oh, don't worry, we'll cure disease before any of us can die from it." …Except for the WHOLE EARTH. Good grief. Not to mention thinking nothing will go wrong when said solutions are inevitably deployed hastily without considering the impact of casually related systems.
>>444>Similar crises have happened in the past like the over usage of lead, which was actually detectable in artic ice, and that was successfully mitigated, despite financial intersts standing in the way.
that is such a tiny improvement. There is still a huge amount of lead pollution all over the place.
>alternative fuels like fusion will become so much more efficent than nucelar energy and gasoline, that using those instead will naturally happen.
fusion has been 20 years in the future for the last 80 years.
>After that, genetically engineered microbes, plants, other innovations will gradually reduce greenhouse gases.
which nobody has the faintest idea how to do
>I wouldn't know, but it might also be possible to isolate local biomes from global ones.
it is not, I can tell you that right now.
>Frankly, even if by the time the solution comes about, a large chunk of the Earth's species go extinct in the wild and third world nations suffer massive casualties, I really don't care as long as I'm fine in the end.
"I have zero empathy and I'm incredibly complacent"
>>446>fusion has been 20 years in the future for the last 80 years.
What's your point? Fusion isn't the only option either. Are you saying alternative fuels wont be able to justify themselves as clearly superior? At least i'm not a defeatist who plans on living in the mountains. It'll happen.>which nobody has the faintest idea how to do
Except they've already done it. There's technical and logistical hurdles to overcome, but it's definitely possible. There's research being done on bacteria and fungi that consume lead too. >"I have zero empathy and I'm incredibly complacent"
At least i'm honest about it. If you look at the actions average people take, it's clear they care as little as I do despite whatever they would say if you asked them. The truth, is I have nothing in common with those people and they really couldn't care less about me either.
>>447>At least i'm not a defeatist who plans on living in the mountains. It'll happen.
"at least I'm not a godless heathen. God will save me."
>There's technical and logistical hurdles to overcome, but it's definitely possible.
so, your claim: there will be a solution and governments and corporations will throw their full weight behind it and everyone will know about it, but there already are solutions and government-corporations aren't throwing their full weight behind it?
>At least i'm honest about it.
I don't think you're being honest, I think you're telling yourself people are evil.
>If you look at the actions average people take, it's clear they care as little as I do despite whatever they would say if you asked them.
so people will band together and make things work, but you also think people are inherently evil and apathetic?
>The truth, is I have nothing in common with those people and they really couldn't care less about me either.
you don't care about the people who make all your soykaf? And yet you also want to be comfortable while soykaf falls apart. Jesus, at least try to make a little sense.
>>448>implying believeing scientific progress will continue to happen is the same as being religious
There's nothing impossible about humans harnessing fusion energy, so there's no good reason to believe it will never happen. >their full weight behind it and everyone will know about it, but there already are solutions and government-corporations aren't throwing their full weight behind it?
They're not solutions until they would actually work as they are now though.
What exactly do you mean by, "throwing their full weight into it"? Money is already being spent on research. If a government just decided to use up all of their money on research, that would end up bankrupting their nation and then there wouldn't be any more money for research. Grants are allocated based on a lot of things. We're not all actually on the brink of extinction. I never said negative consequences somewhere in the world wouldn't happen before things start getting better, I said a lot of people wont ever be effected in the slightest. >so people will band together and make things work, but you also think people are inherently evil and apathetic?
This black and white mentality is what doesn't make sense. Humans are inherently selfish and self-centered. They don't have the capacity to feel bad about every bad thing in the world, and they certainly wont try to act on most of the things that don't effect them. Maybe they fell bad about something specific for a while, but then they stop caring normally. Doesn't make them "evil". You're still pushing this "banding together" narrative. We don't fucking need to band together with subsaharan africans. We don't need to band to together with Samalians or Venezuelans or Ethiopians. Their help isn't required. >you don't care about the people who make all your soykaf?
China isn't a third world nation. Even outside of what they produce, automation will make that entire model of foreigner slavery obsolete. Would it really be better if I only cared about them because they make some of my crap? I always avoided their products when I could anyway.
>>449>This black and white mentality is what doesn't make sense…(continued)
You're showing a lack of empathy and the large context of why this is. People are wired to care about their community and local circle (see: monkey-sphere). Their friends, family, and stability of needs. I think most people are either so engrossed in satisfying these things, but many of those that have energy to spare will: A) Do something, but it's either ineffective, or it's effective and invisible or not significant enough for you to commit to your monkey-sphere-wired tally; or B) realize the systems which make up the world are too complex to do A, and therefore choose to concentrate more energy to their needs. Yes people seem selfish and self-centered, but the actions of the majority of people do make sense and I think it's wrong to expect more or expect their actions to align with your views of what needs to be done. I'm sure this applies to you as well, but you tell yourself you do not care because that's what makes sense for you now. You obviously care, otherwise you wouldn't bother talking about it here.
I think many people miss the point that talking about these things are important. For example, I think it is important to care about the wellness of people around the world, such as those in third-world countries. Technological gap and colonization are huge blame for the lack of wellness in 'third-world' countries, followed by exploitation and economically-motivated war. It's myopic to place the blame solely on the people and governments of these countries. Venezuela, for example, had long decided they want to nationalize their oil supply, a primary reason for why that for decades they've been hit with sanctions (currently costing the country $30 million a day), coups, assassination attempts, and other foreign conflicts. Considering that, they're holding their own incredibly well, and I personally think the systems that brought the country to its current state (like so many others) are a major detriment to the wellness of people and the Earth alike. It's important to understand these sociopolitical events in order to recognize your own personal power in context of it and be able to act on that, whether that's talking about it with your community, protesting, discussing it with your representatives, and so on.
Beyond and individual's own needs, one is naturally inclined to learn and react to those things that threaten themselves and others. Hence why this thread exists.
>>450>many of those that have energy to spare will
What do you means by this? Anyone can say they just don't have enough energy, meanwhile there's workaholics who still find time to be charitable. I don't know what motivates those types of people, but the majority have plenty of spare energy and money they choose not to spend on things that "matter". Even outside of global issues, there's plenty of local ones most people don't give a fuck.>but the actions of the majority of people do make sense and I think it's wrong to expect more or expect their actions to align with your views of what needs to be done
I don't understand what this means. Acting selfish is logical. You can see it at every scale. Any time a societal system tries to pretend humans aren't inherently selfish and will only give a fuck about something in the long-term if they're rewarded in some extra way for it, that society crumbles. The way most people treat the people around them, the way they treat their job, the way they treat things that have nothing to do with them, makes that clear. >otherwise you wouldn't bother talking about it here.
I care about this conversation, not for any "good" reason, but other than that it does not affect me. After this coversation dies down, i'll go back to doing absolutely nothing about the issue. >Technological gap and colonization are huge blame for the lack of wellness in 'third-world' countries, followed by exploitation and economically-motivated war.
Excuses excuses excuses. Look at Japan. Look at Singapore. England brought itself up after a civil war. Japan managed to first elevate itself into a modern colonial power in an astonishingly short ammount of time, then rebuild themselves after the war into one of the biggest economies in the world, all despite being on an island nation with hardly any resources. They had help after the war, but that would have ammounted to nothing if they didn't push themselves foward. That's the difference between low-quality and high-quality people. Low-quality people will suffer and flounder in whatever enviroment you put them in regardless of the help they get or the resources available to them. They'll fail to take what has been given to them and maintain it and build it up(infrastructure). They'll fail to learn by example and adapt. There's always going to be some "reason" for it, but the root of the issue is with them. Cut them off, leave them to their own devices, keep them away from you.
collapse is imminent and patchwork anarchy is the only sustainable response
>>449>There's nothing impossible about humans harnessing fusion energy, so there's no good reason to believe it will never happen.
there is reason to believe it won't happen in the near future. There is reason to believe it won't happen fast enough to be the savior you believe in.
>I said a lot of people wont ever be effected in the slightest.
this is a key element of your faith, and it is false. It will affect everybody because the economy is global. Practically every supply chain is global. If the gulf stream fails, that will have global consequences.
>>451>Acting selfish is logical.
generally not. Cooperation almost always results in better outcomes for everyone. You can reframe cooperation as "selfishness" but then you're basically equating self-interest with selfishness which is false.
>After this coversation dies down, i'll go back to doing absolutely nothing about the issue.
you'll die like all the other stupid flies, all the while saying "don't panic everybody! Just keep doing nothing!"
>>453>There is reason to believe it won't happen fast enough to be the savior you believe in.
Fusion isn't the only option. Look up a list of alternative energy sources that already and will exist.>It will affect everybody because the economy is global
Uh huh, well, I prefer locally grown food. I just don't buy your idea that everything will collapse so easily and soon. >Cooperation almost always results in better outcomes for everyone
How exactly is being motivated by self-interest different from selfishness? Also, some people aren't worth cooperating with as I already said. >you'll die like all the other stupid flies, all the while saying "don't panic everybody! Just keep doing nothing!"
Never said people shouldn't do anything. Panic all you want, have fun in the mountains.
>>455>Look up a list of alternative energy sources that already and will exist.
aye, I was pointing out that a lot of world-saver technologies like fusion or magic genetic engineering are pretty far off. Solar could be good, wind could be good… but the vast majority of power is still generated by fossil fuels, and there's no indication that this will change any time soon
>I prefer locally grown food.
good for you, but unless you live in a shack in the wilderness you rely indirectly on people from Nigeria.
>I just don't buy your idea that everything will collapse so easily and soon.
it's easy for things to collapse. This civilization is quite unstable compared to even 20 years ago.
>How exactly is being motivated by self-interest different from selfishness?
selfishness means putting personal gain over collective gain, even when collective gain benefits you. "Fuck you, I've got mine". It is almost never good for anybody.
>Never said people shouldn't do anything.
you just said you won't do anything, because you think you won't be affected.
>Panic all you want, have fun in the mountains.
if I were panicking I wouldn't be spending time trying to explain things to complacent buffoons on the internet.
>>456>if I were panicking I wouldn't be spending time trying to explain things to complacent buffoons on the internet.
don't worry about the trolls.
they don't need your feed.>inb4 'they're not trolls'
anyone who is spewing baseless ideology is indistinguishable from a troll, and so we have to ignore them or feed trolls.
Desert is pretty great
>>457>my doomsday predictions aren't ideology
Okay. All I was doing was answering op's question. I could probably find some "credible people" who think things will play out the same way I do. Either way it doesn't matter because an appeal to authority doesn't make you right. Anybody who says they can predict the future with absolute certainty is an ideologue regardless of how many graphs and quotes they have. Did I ever say the planet wasn't warming up?
>>456>It is almost never good for anybody.
You're right. If it's not good for anybody, it would be stupid to prioritize yourself when you could get a lot more out of contributing to a system. When people feel stable enough to prioritize themselves over others though, they often do so. That shouldn't be some kind of revelation. You can't have a system with zero corruption. >Nigeria
That's a bad example to use. Corporations see a potential market there, but growing quickly when you're starting from nothing isn't that impressive. Some people predict they wont make it past this year. If they're right, I'll tell you how much i'm personally affected.
>>424>I don't really care. Some people will suffer one way or another because their group is incapable of creating a self-sufficent society.
Do you unironically not know that the US/Europe is to blame for most countries being "incapable" of pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. If a country tries to go against US imperialism like Chile or Granada the US and co will go into your country and overthrow you one way or another. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm96GYS7B2U>>421
This is very idealistic, because the feasibility of the tech you describe or let alone the safety of it is so many years distant. We only have 5-15 years to reach net negative. soykaf like perma frost melting, and horrible natural disasters are already occurring. Pair this with the unsustainability of numerous industries. The real thing we should be focusing on is changing the functions of our industry, but soykaf like the oil lobby won’t let that happen.
Would recommend everyone to read this study, it describes a lot of what we could be doing but our societies aren’t. https://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf
_obviously_ I don't mean only Nigeria. I mean that the actual labor and materials which go into almost everything you have rely on people all over the world.
Everything is connected.
It'll all collapse and there's no fix to it. Secure yourself with social class, make yourself part of the First Class passengers that get on the lifeboat.