3 ms·

We have actually solved a lot of problems like that through ecological and other regulations. Just from the top of my head: - worst pesticides (DDT) - sulfate

We have actually solved a lot of problems like that through ecological and other regulations. Just from the top of my head: - worst pesticides (DDT) - sulfate aerosols from coal - CFCs - chloride based plastics - asbestos and dust - leaded gasoline - heavy metals - nuclear non-proliferation We have also made strides in monitoring our environment. So it might look like lots of doomsday predictions, but the reason why these didn't pan out was that humans actually put the work in to prevent that from happening.

0xJRS 7y ago
CFCs? Geniunely curious how? My gf uses a can of dry shampoo in 2 weeks and im sure she isn't using it at a rate higher than most others..
- distances 7y ago
  I've never heard of dry shampoo, but CFCs are effectively banned [1] so you're probably thinking of something else. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon
wccrawford 7y ago
We have "solved" those problems, but doesn't that just make it worse? Not only are they inured to the constant barrage of emergencies, but they are used to someone else finding and implementing a fix for it without their input. Those problems are so big that there's literally no way for 1 person to solve it alone. It takes a massive, coordinated effort, such as outlawing something and making it simply unavailable.
- marcus_holmes 7y ago
  Sorry, what? We should not have solved those problems because being able to solve those problems makes it harder to solve this problem? How does that work? You've got to remember, the Hole in the Ozone Layer was just as threatening at the time as Climate Change. It was literally going to fry us all within a decade because of extreme UV. We'd be living in underground bunkers by now. And then we stopped using CFC's and it stopped growing, and we're all good now, thanks. Except the next disaster that was going to kill us all came along...
  - wccrawford 7y ago
    As I explained, having solved all the other problems without people having to do anything that wasn't mandated by law makes them think that they shouldn't have to do anything that isn't mandated by law. And the more times we do it that way, they more they'll think that. We're probably already past the event horizon on that issue. At this point, there's probably no way to make it happen that doesn't involved laws.
    - marcus_holmes 7y ago
      But this is exactly the same situation as with the nukes: There's no way any of us can change the situation individually. We're past the event horizon; nuclear war/catastrophic climate change is a certainty, and we're all going to die. Some brave individuals are protesting against it, and some people are preparing for it. But for most of us, it's a done deal. I have a theory that it actually allows people to stop worrying about the future, and therefore we don't have to make long-term decisions. It's actually comforting in a "what's the point of saving money, we're all going to die in a nuclear holocaust/climate heatwave anyway. Might as well spend it down the pub now..." way.

0xJRS 7y ago

CFCs? Geniunely curious how? My gf uses a can of dry shampoo in 2 weeks and im sure she isn't using it at a rate higher than most others..

distances 7y ago
I've never heard of dry shampoo, but CFCs are effectively banned [1] so you're probably thinking of something else. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon

wccrawford 7y ago

We have "solved" those problems, but doesn't that just make it worse? Not only are they inured to the constant barrage of emergencies, but they are used to someone else finding and implementing a fix for it without their input. Those problems are so big that there's literally no way for 1 person to solve it alone. It takes a massive, coordinated effort, such as outlawing something and making it simply unavailable.

marcus_holmes 7y ago
Sorry, what? We should not have solved those problems because being able to solve those problems makes it harder to solve this problem? How does that work? You've got to remember, the Hole in the Ozone Layer was just as threatening at the time as Climate Change. It was literally going to fry us all within a decade because of extreme UV. We'd be living in underground bunkers by now. And then we stopped using CFC's and it stopped growing, and we're all good now, thanks. Except the next disaster that was going to kill us all came along...
- wccrawford 7y ago
  As I explained, having solved all the other problems without people having to do anything that wasn't mandated by law makes them think that they shouldn't have to do anything that isn't mandated by law. And the more times we do it that way, they more they'll think that. We're probably already past the event horizon on that issue. At this point, there's probably no way to make it happen that doesn't involved laws.
  - marcus_holmes 7y ago
    But this is exactly the same situation as with the nukes: There's no way any of us can change the situation individually. We're past the event horizon; nuclear war/catastrophic climate change is a certainty, and we're all going to die. Some brave individuals are protesting against it, and some people are preparing for it. But for most of us, it's a done deal. I have a theory that it actually allows people to stop worrying about the future, and therefore we don't have to make long-term decisions. It's actually comforting in a "what's the point of saving money, we're all going to die in a nuclear holocaust/climate heatwave anyway. Might as well spend it down the pub now..." way.