10 ms·
What if we stopped pretending the climate apocalypse can be stopped?
- tormeh 7y agoReally disheartened that it will hit during my lifetime. Had hoped to dodge it, really. How do you, as an individual, prepare for this?
- ummonk 7y agoPrimarily, make sure you live at elevation (i.e. > 20 feet). Also helps if you've got temperate or cool local weather, so it doesn't get unpleasant decades from now.
- ggreer 7y agoThe most pessimistic IPCC projections estimate a 1 meter rise in sea level over the next century. For comparison sea level rose by 20cm in the past century.
- adrianN 7y agoThe IPCC might underestimate: https://phys.org/news/2019-08-scientists-evidence-high-level-sea.html https://phys.org/news/2019-08-scientists-evidence-high-level...
- ggreer 7y agoNowhere in that article are timelines mentioned. Yes sea levels will continue to rise, but it will take over a thousand years to melt the ice caps.
- ummonk 7y agoTides, hurricanes etc. tend to result in flooding somewhat above sea level already. 20 feet is probably still overly pessimistic but I'm just erring on the conservative side.
- malka 7y agoSuicide is a good option
- imtringued 7y agoCollective suicide by climate change? At least you won't feel left out.
- dang 7y agoPlease don't do this here.
- shoes_for_thee 7y agoAvoid procreating. Put your money into prepping instead of your 401k. Make a plan to kill yourself when it all becomes too much to bear. Enjoy the time you have.
- ForHackernews 7y agoDon't have kids unless your dream is for them to suffer and live with a steadily declining quality of life from their childhoods. Try to get rich enough before the worst effects become widespread that you can buy your way out of some of it.
- bostik 7y agoI upvoted you, because as cynical as your comment may be, I believe yours is the most rational approach. I believe that in our lifetime we will see the western countries effectively barricade their borders. When an unannounced ship approaches with desperate human beings on board, fleeing the wars, we won't be even allowed to think about accepting them. The ships will be, not stopped and turned around, but torpedoed and sunk on sight. The corpses will be harvested for feed and fertiliser. From that point onwards, in another couple of generations, there won't be any sanctuaries left. Not even for the richest. They will all have been overrun, pillaged and plundered. My only consolation is that I am old enough to not necessarily witness all of it.
- ganzuul 7y agoChanged careers to something society can't do without. Hoping they will pick the machinist over the instagram model for the space ark.
- jacobwilliamroy 7y agoBasic stuff. Learn horticulture, soil science. Understand whether or not your area is viable for a sustainable settlement and move along if it's not. Best to do all your moving while you can still afford to drive. Do exercise, strength training, cardio. Bodyweight stuff or yoga is great for everyday life activities. How far can you carry 60 pounds of supplies and equipment? Make friends, obviously. Learn how to resolve conflict non-violently. You and everyone else will constantly be running into conflicts and someone is going to have to remember how to meet everyone's needs without killing people.
- faissaloo 7y agoIt's also probably a good idea to learn how to resolve conflicts violently and accept the consequences of that.
- jacobwilliamroy 7y agoSlug throwing is pretty basic stuff. Doesn't take very long to learn that.
- Seanzie 7y agoThere are many ways to prepare for climate catastrophe, but here's one you could try: 1) Read Paul Ehrlich's book "The Population Bomb". If you don't have time, just watch the movie "Soylent Green" to get the gist of it. 2) Look around you for any sign of planet-wide famine. 3) ??? 4) Profit!
- fallingfrog 7y agoI’ve been thinking lately that starting a commune might be one way. Think about this: a commune counts as a nonprofit entity. So you don’t have to pay taxes. If you own your land, there is no rent. The commune can run a business, and there’s no payroll tax and no boss, so all the profits can directly be spent on food and supplies. So you can live super cheap. You can have a little fleet of cars and bicycles, free for use, other facilities- and now, you’re not going to lose your job, you’re not going to become homeless because of a medical bill, when things go south you have mutual defense and support. Sounds better than going it alone, doesn’t it?
- pharke 7y agoThere seem to be a bunch of self-centered pessimists replying to you so I'll try to give a real response. If you don't already work in an industry that is doing research towards or creating a product that makes a difference, change careers. The solution to this, both on an individual and collective level, is not to give up and hide in a hole hoping you die quietly in your sleep. The solution is to fucking solve the problem. We need smart people in engineering, nuclear science, agriculture, bioscience, and politics. People that give a damn and aren't satisfied to sit on their asses and wistfully dream of eco-primitivist utopias. Put your resources into skilling up and move to a center where shit is getting done. Talk to people that are working on the problem and find a job that is actively moving the needle. If we can't fix it then at least you'll die trying rather than cowering.
- AstralStorm 7y agoEven if we can't fix it we can make it much better and less misery for everyone involved. The question is, how many people do you want to sacrifice to eat your delicious cow and drive a SUV?
- pharke 7y agoProhibition doesn't change the sum total of misery in the world, it just evenly distributes it. The only way to reduce the total amount of misery is to increase the standard of living of more people. Everyone should be able to eat delicious cow and drive SUVs if they want to. The problem to solve is in how we reduce the harm those things currently have on the environment, there are many options for that other than "just take away the SUVs and cows so no one has them".
- faissaloo 7y agoLearn as much as you can and practice being resourceful, information is power, medicine, chemistry and biology in particular are extremely important. If we have to endure catastrophic collapse being able to construct things like makeshift air cooling, air and water filtering systems from raw and waste materials will be paramount.
- manicdee 7y agoClimate apocalypse is not something that “hits” it is something that grows. It started decades ago and will get gradually worse over time. What you as an individual can do to prepare is put pressure on the suppliers of goods and services (including your government) to take their role seriously and reduce emissions. Stop using single-use plastics, stop buying groceries that are individually shrink-wrapped. Buy fresh fruit and vegetables and prepare your own meals. Walk where you can, try to use public transport for commuting (it takes longer, but someone else is driving so you can do your morning and evening reading & correspondence on the bus/train) Basically do everything you can to reduce your energy consumption, both directly and indirectly. Energy consumptions is a very good proxy for personal contribution to emissions, including the embodied energy in things like plastic utensils and fast food wrappers/boxes/bags. Rather than watching a movie on Netflix, read a book. The internet services and domestic devices used to watch a movie will consume more energy during that movie session than a year of reading on a tablet or paper books (with a bed lamp book light). Apart from overpopulation, the biggest contribution to global emissions is the extreme energy consumption lifestyle of western countries. We offshore a lot of the production and point the finger at China, but China’s emissions are mainly from manufacturing and transport which is mostly for products being sent to western countries.
- ghthor 7y agoWell, our cow blanket might prove useful if the sun goes to sleep and the earth is destined for another ice age.
- adrianN 7y agoThe thing is, it's already too late to prevent pretty terrible effects of climate change, but it's not too late to stop it from getting even worse. Every tenth of a degree can make a world of difference. So while we will most certainly not stay below 1.5°, the difference between 2 and 3 degrees is huge, and the efforts we make today decide in what world we'll live in. Resigning to the inevitable now is a surefire recipe to get to the absolute worst case scenario where the survival of our technological civilization is very much uncertain.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Bombthecat 7y agoBut would there be a difference between 5 and 6?
- gambiting 7y agoFrom what I understand no - warming by 5 degrees will cause all phytoplankton to die off and as a result we'll run out of oxygen(not immediately of course, but we inevitably will).
- gshdg 7y agoHow long do the pessimistic projections say we have until 5 degrees?
- basch 7y agoWouldnt it be a really really long time to run out of oxygen? “What would happen if we combusted every living cell on Earth?” it asked. That is, Peters wanted to know what would happen to the atmosphere if you burned down not just the Amazon, but every forest on Earth, every blade of grass, every moss and lichen-spackled patch of rock, all the flowers and bees, all the orchids and hummingbirds, all the phytoplankton, zooplankton, whales, starfish, bacteria, giraffes, hyraxes, coatimundis, oarfish, albatrosses, mushrooms, placozoans—all of it, besides the humans. Peters pulled up the next slide. After this unthinkable planetary immolation, the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere dropped from 20.9 percent to 20.4 percent. CO2 rose from 400 parts per million to 900—less, even, than it does in the worst-case scenarios for fossil-fuel emissions by 2100. By burning every living thing on Earth. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/amazon-fire-earth-has-plenty-oxygen/596923/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/amazon-f...
- yyyk 7y ago"Some climate activists argue that if we publicly admit that the problem can’t be solved, it will discourage people from taking any ameliorative action at all... But the impending catastrophe heightens the urgency of almost any world-improving action... these are all meaningful climate actions" 1) Argues that giving up hope does not mean the end of attempts to ameliorate warming. 2) Proceeds to define 'climate action' so broadly that just everything is a climate action, which will disperse and confuse efforts so much, no action on climate will be taken.
- ForHackernews 7y agoNo meaningful action is being taken on climate change: https://climateactiontracker.org/ https://climateactiontracker.org/ How is this article's position going to make that worse?
- adrianN 7y agoIt ensures that no meaningful action will be taken in the next years either.
- ForHackernews 7y agoHow are you so sure of that? We've been trying it your way for 40 years and gotten nowhere https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/c5rjs2/its_that_easy_oc/ https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/c5rjs2/its_that_eas... Maybe telling everyone the truth at this late stage will produce some kind of meaningful reflection. Even it doesn't, it'll still just be the status quo.
- 29athrowaway 7y ago-
- jacobwilliamroy 7y agoMad max apocalypse would only last, like, 15 years max. Can't keep feeding people to the pigs (sus scrofa domesticus) forever. It really seems like there is something about humanity that is being selected out of the ecosystem. My guess is the over-reliance on physical violence and emotional abuse to maintain group structures.
- esarbe 7y agoI don't think so. My bet is on 'competition for resources', which is something that every organism needs to do. Every species needs to be competitive, needs to fight for resources. The problem only is that we are so good at competition for resources that we've out-competed every other species on this planet. Don't get me wrong - any species that somehow hits on similar exploits as we did (tool use, cooperation) will find itself in a very similar situation sooner or later; the moment where they start destroying the ecosytem that supports them. For us that probably started with agriculture, maybe even earlier, when we killed off all other apex predators. So, if there's something that's "selected against", it's our unexpected success. I don't think that there are many times in the history life on a planet that a species lands such a jackpot. Unfortunately we're just like Joe Shmoe after a lottery win; we spend all the loot in one spree over the planet and wake up a few years later, facing the consequences of our reckless behavior while we were drunk on power. Our monkey brains just aren't built for the life in paradise.
- OBLIQUE_PILLAR 7y agoJonathan Franzen is not an expert in the possible effects of climate change. He's an expert at writing novels in which everyone sounds like they have a Creative Writing MFA from Swarthmore. This is silly.
- benologist 7y agoAlongside this is a story celebrating how more people are using 100 - 200 grams of internationally-shipped and hand-delivered plastic on the equivalent of a 256mb usb stick to distribute music instead of the internet. Most of us can't wait to replace our massive-carbon-sink computer with a new one and put the old one in a cupboard. Sacrifice was key to beating this and we didn't do it and we might be getting worse.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoIf we decarbonised power, industry and transport, we could afford to use a little vinyl for a niche hobby, some plastic for the few specialist packaging types that can't be done better in something else, for the medical uses and such like. We probably should be celebrating the rise of ownership over a monthly subscription to listen only while you pay. Until we are told the calculated impacts of each, neither of us knows the better choice for the planet. If we adjusted the rules of the capitalism game such that sustainability, repairability, life of product, company and planet were baked in, that carbon, pollution and environment cost has to be displayed on labels and every service. Maybe simple taxes can do that, maybe it needs a little or a lot more creativity.
- ghobs91 7y ago1. Even if we can't completely prevent it, we can stop it from being much worse. 2. Regardless of the climate changer factor, polluting the air causes cancer, damages ecosystems, harms our food supply, etc. The mentality of "we can't prevent it, so why bother trying" is like accidentally shooting yourself in the foot, and when finding out it'll have to be amputated, proceeding to shoot your other foot because "what's the point?".
- jbattle 7y agoDid you read the article? That's not what it's about at all. The author is saying that we aren't going to "stop" climate change. So instead we should be strategizing how to proactively invest in systems (both natural and man-made) to make them more resilient in the face of changes to come.
- i_am_proteus 7y agoWhich all conveniently line up with one major political platform. "If you frightened by the coming climate cataclysm, then you should also agree with me on everything." It's very well-written, but it's not rational. The content is more political than scientific.
- jbattle 7y agoDeciding on what choices to make in response to the climate changing is inherently political. Science can inform the process but can't tell us which selection of responses is "most valid".
- adrianN 7y agoIt would be really nice though if politicians would trust scientists to tell them which "solutions" don't actually solve the problem at all.
- abathur 7y agoIs climate change more of a scientific problem, or a political one? Will the problem de-materialize as soon as some scientists finally figure it all out?
- Seanzie 7y agoIt appears that we have already given up. Efficient, low-carbon-emitting natural gas power plants have been replacing coal-fired plants in the USA, largely due to cheap and abundant fuel extracted via fracking. If that were important, we would not be discussing bans on fracking.
- hannob 7y agoThey're only efficient and low-cabon if you compare them to coal, not if you use basic sanity that building any kind of new fossil infrastructure is madness. Even the low carbon of fracking is questionable given methane leaks.
- adrianN 7y agoBuilding gas plants is not terribly stupid, because we'll probably need power-to-gas technology unless somebody finds cheaper ways to make batteries.
- AstralStorm 7y agoThe only viable kind of gas is biogas which you have to sequester anyway. Other kinds speed up the catastrophe. There cleaner than some coal and oil but that's about it. They're not even close compared to nuclear or renewables. Why do you need gas? Can't use the electric vehicle or appliance? If you need trace gases for manufacturing, you can sequester them instead.
- adrianN 7y agoNo, you can create Methane out of thin air with electricity and store that in the existing infrastructure for strategic gas reserves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas It's a very convenient way to store large amounts of energy for dark, windstill winters. If you then have a decent number of gas plants you can turn it into electricity to run the heat pumps in your homes.
- imtringued 7y agoTo stay sane of course. Dying from climate change isn't that different from dying of old age. If every day you remind yourself that you are going to die one day then you are putting yourself under mental stress. If it is hopeless as the title implies and there is nothing you can do to stop it, then thinking about climate change will just make your life worse than it already is. I'm actually optimistic that it's possible to prevent the worst effects of climate change from a technological standpoint but I have no hope that we can resolve the prisoners dilemma. Making a quick buck is simply too easy.
- antiutopian 7y agoThere are measures we can take against climate change, they just go against the structural needs of the capitalist system. If governments continue to put the continuation of the system above the needs of the environment, then of course we won't see serious action. The author accepts that this is a permanent state of affairs and attributes it incorrectly to "human nature" when in reality it reflects the present weakness of the anti-capitalist movement. There is hope, but it's not in liberal politicians and eco startups, and I get why you'd be hopeless if that's where you're looking for change to come from.
- faissaloo 7y agoYou're not going to be able to kill capitalism before things go really wrong, modern capitalism still has a stranglehold on us all and it probably won't fall until climate change kicks into high gear and eradicates huge portions of the western population. At least the anprims will be happy.
- perl4ever 7y agoI'm not clear on why people are particularly angry at capitalism. It seems like just a label that allows people to focus on the US fossil fuel industry, as the US is the archetype of capitalism, while vaguely associating all the other major fossil fuel producers with the West/US/capitalism. Is the reason Russia and KSA are producing fossil fuels because they were infected with a specific ideology? I feel like there's a confusion of cause and effect, like if you blamed evolution on Darwinism.
- faissaloo 7y agoModern capitalism puts itself at the center of society and greatly punishes anything that attempts to draw people away from holding capital gain as being the epitome of self-interest. Yes, Russia and the KSA do indeed bend to the will of capitalism, with varying degrees of resistance. If people were not rewarded for this behavior it would not continue.
- 7y ago
- chillacy 7y agoThere are now 3 positions in american discourse on climate change: 1. It's not happening / not real 2. It's happening and we can still prevent it 3. It's happening and it's worse than we all think Externalities aren't correctly priced into our market and we're suffering the consequences.
- rolph 7y agoI think there is a 4th position not in discourse: 4. Im so old i will die before it kills me, and im rich/influential enough to buy a comfortable situation for myself until that day. or alternatively, "Its Not My Problem."
- jobigoud 7y agoThe third option should be more contrasted with the second one. It's: 3. It's happening and we can't prevent it so there is no point doing anything. People that refuse to consider changing their lifestyle will happily leap frog from 1 to 3.
- gnusty_gnurc 7y agoThere’s another somewhat marginal position of: change is happening and it’s not “the apocalypse”
- perl4ever 7y ago"Externalities aren't correctly priced" If you can say that, it follows that you have calculated or are aware of the correct price. So, I really want to know - about what is the correct price of the externalities of a gallon of gas that aren't included in, say, the retail price in California? Is it closer to $0.01, $0.10, $1, $10, $100, or $1000?
- AstralStorm 7y agoThe problem is akin to computing value of human life. If you burning gasoline will kill 3 humans and make life a misery for 20, what's the proper price? Many would argue it's infinity. It's not safe to continue burning fossils in any way, shape or form, not burning fresh biomass either. Reclaiming biogas is probably the only sane way of burning anything now... (Prevents methane releases.) Unfortunately most people don't or can't run moral calculations like this.
- frabbit 7y agoI have heard meat-eating car-drivers push this line of thinking for at least two decades. You know the sort of person: willing to rag on the republicans or the Koch brothers for being bad, but ultimately unwilling to do anything except moan about how it is all too hard.
- swayvil 7y agoThe billionaires choose the song, we only dance to it. Unless you fancy a cardboard box under a viaduct.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago...until it's so far gone folks start reaching for pitchforks or constitutionally enshrined assault weaponry.
- hakfoo 7y agoIndividual decisions are not going to affect economic signals meaningfully. How many Brazillian ranchers stop clear-cutting if you or I go vegan? The impact on their market is essentially immeasurable. In contrast, a state level policy can move the needle. If the rest of the world slaps a $10/kg tariff on Amazonian beef, their business collapses rapidly. Of course, then we get into unknown consequences where we don't know what they'll try next to salvage the wreckage of the industry.
- manicdee 7y agoIf you think individual decisions are not going to send economic signals, ask the US car industry about ICE sales.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- robomartin 7y agoThe problem with climate change is that it has now solidly left the realm of the scientific to enter politics. Here’s the truth: We cannot do a thing about it. This is scientific fact, not my opinion. I invite everyone to reproduce my conclusion. Here’s how to do it: Question: How long would it take for a 100 ppm drop in atmospheric CO2 concentration if humanity, along with all of our technology, evaporated from this planet tomorrow? In other words, a Thanos moment. A snap of the fingers and humanity is gone in an instant. Why this question? Because that’s the baseline. This is important: WE CANNOT DO BETTER THAN THIS RATE IF CHANGE. Can we answer that question? Yes! We have 800,000 years of highly accurate atmospheric composition data from ice core sampling. In other words, we have a time machine that tells us exactly how the planet would behave if we were not here. What does the data say? How does it answer my question? 50,000 to 75,000 years for a 100 ppm drop in atmospheric CO2 concentration if we evaporated from this planet. THAT IS THE BASELINE Any proposal for “saving the planet” has to be measured against that. For example: Erase the US from the planet -> Save the planet in 50 years? Nope, ridiculous. Ban all forms if internal combustion engines? Nope. Ridiculous. Switch to 100% renewable energy at a world scale? Nope. Again, ridiculous. All of these are ridiculous because the next question should be: How is this going to perform a THOUSAND TIMES BETTER than the Thanos scenario? The answer, at that point, becomes beyond obvious: These ideas are ridiculous. As for what would work, well, that’s a whole other conversation that starts with reforestation at a monumental scale.
- adrianN 7y agoYou can suck carbon out of the atmosphere faster than the geological processes that do it naturally. But that of course doesn't matter if you work on the assumption that it's ridiculous to stop burning fossil fuels. Many people believe that it's possible and actually not hard, just expensive.
- robomartin 7y agoNo, you cannot. Do the math on how much energy and resources would be required to do what you are suggesting at a global scale. That’s the problem with all of these great sounding ideas, nobody bothers to quantify them —particularly at a planetary scale. EDIT: Just noticed your comment about burning fuels. I need to clarify something. And this is important. I have never --ever-- said (and I've written about this a few times on HN) that migrating away from fossil fuels is a bad idea. It's a great idea. We should do it to the extent possible. I've done my part, I installed a 13 kW solar power system at my home and we are on track to switch to 100% electric vehicles within, say, a year. What is NOT OK is pretending that this is going to "save the planet". Our migration away from fossil fuels will do absolutely nothing of note --zero-- as far as reversing atmospheric CO2 accumulation. This has been studied and published. The conclusion was, to paraphrase, "even if we migrated the entire planet to the MOST OPTIMAL FORMS of renewable energy sources, atmospheric CO2 accumulation would continue to INCREASE EXPONENTIALLY". In other words, even if we did the impossible (total migration to renewable sources at a global is likely impossible). Why? BECAUSE THE BASELINE IS 75,000 YEARS with NO HUMANS ON EARTH. BTW, I am not yelling, using caps for emphasis. We can discuss facts or that which we wish were facts. The difference is that we are never going to improve anything if we insist on ignoring reality. It is OK to say "all of these proposals are nonsense", if, in fact, they are. It would be the same if politicians were proposing to save humanity by reducing the planet's gravitational constant by 10%. Ridiculous, but I bet someone out there could make a fictional case about the idea and collect an audience...just like the flat earth geniuses.
- swayvil 7y agoWho's pretending? All we need is for the billionaires to stop fighting, work together and save the world.
- frabbit 7y agoI have honestly wondered whether a rational, amoral planner would be readying the release of some pathogen(s) from which a reasonable number of people would survive. I wonder what the signs of such preparation would be? Obviously you would want to make sure that nuclear power stations, refineries and dangerous chemical plants were either capable of a graceful shutdown or that there would be enough trained operators in place. You would want some sort of armed forces under your control. Food production chains would need to be local and secured and self-contained. What else?
- giorgioz 7y agoThat's the plan of Thanos in Avengers Infinity War. Truth is, if you have the resources to make half people disappear with no consequences you also have the resources to fix climate change directly.
- jobigoud 7y agoThere is a tick that renders people allergic to meat. The villain could start with that and let the market work out the details.
- frabbit 7y agoNot to forget anti-vaxxers: spread a meme that selects exactly the type of person you cannot rely on to be rational and then supply the corrollary.
- armagon 7y agoThe book "Superfreakonomics" had a chapter on simple, cheap solutions to problems, and suggested one for global warming -- there was a 'year with no summer' in which a volcano introduced chemicals into the atmosphere (sorry, I don't have the details handy) which cooled down the earth, and that we have huge amounts of the stuff as a waste material -- we'd just need to put it into the upper atmosphere. Now, I see that the science is disputed, and I understand that there'd be political problems with who controls the thermostat, but the idea was really cheap -- something like $40 million to get going and a million every year to continue. Way cheaper than government initiatives that haven't actually done anything. Why can't we pursue something like this, or even try them out?
- fuzzy2 7y agoBecause we don't understand enough to be sure it wouldn't cause unintended negative side effects. I read that one possibility is less rain. Which is obviously something we don't want. It's already not enough.
- faissaloo 7y agoWe don't understand enough to ensure anything we've done wouldn't cause unintended negative side effects but as it stands we're headed for utter destruction so doing something might be better than nothing.
- AstralStorm 7y agoNo. Doing wrong things can be much worse than doing nothing. If you kill off too much biosphere for example, there goes humanity. Volcanos tend to throw a lot of sulfur in the air which is deadly. We could disperse dust in other ways, but the risk is that we'd increase albedo of Earth and cook it even more.
- unicornporn 7y agoYou need to listen "Deep Adaptation: A Map for Navigating Climate Tragedy": https://www.soundcloud.com/user-56712817/deep-adaptation https://www.soundcloud.com/user-56712817/deep-adaptation Or read it: https://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf https://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf
- tempsolution 7y agoIt is a bit like with a formula one car. If you go through the curve with 100 mph, you will die, because you really need to go through the curve at 200 mph for aerodynamics to give you enough downward force to keep you on the track... We are in a very similar situation here. We need to aggressively speed up and focus our engineering efforts to understand nature and to potentially "suck the gases out of the atmosphere" (one solution, we put it there, we should be able to get it back out, if that was really the reason anyway). Never in mankind's history have the odds been so in our favor. Our technology improves at unprecedented speeds and its only going to go faster. It has to go faster, that is. Otherwise we actually might be wiped out. I never understood why people think its a good idea to dial back progress & technology to where we were a few hundred years ago... The earth will die anyway in a few billion years. There is only one way forward: Out into space. At the current rate we will be able to do just that, within the allotted time. Even if we can't save earth in the end (who knows), we will still have enough time to leave the sinking ship. But we also have a pretty good shot at to repair the damage we have done. But the answer for both trajectories is the same: Technology, more technology and faster, faster. If that means more pollution, that's okay. As long as we advance faster than we destroy (which we are doing already), we are golden! Stopping or going slower is what will kill us. So people, stop whining about pollution and global warming. There is no way to stop that other than technology. Developing countries are not going to stop polluting. Most notably seen with the Amazon. We have no true control over what other countries do. But we can repair the damage they do, via technology deployed on our home soil. That is precisely what we must do & develop. Waiting for global consensus and contracts is waiting for death... Hell, they can't even agree on some minimal pollution numbers between the G7 countries. How the hell are you going to get all 200 nations into one basket. It's ludicrous. On that note, keep in mind that countries like the USA are the world's number one polluter. Developing countries do some serious shit, but on a smaller scale.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoIf we can't keep biosphere 1.0 viable, we have bugger all chance of creating a viable and sustainable extra planetary one. Besides how many launches will be needed to get 7bn to biosphere 2.0? Whatever the answer it's cheaper and easier to address AGW right here, right now. Or does your backup plan only involve sending a tiny few off planet?...
- grandridge 7y agoWhat if we stop pretending there is a climate apocalypse
- jobigoud 7y agoIt won't stop it either, unfortunately.
- aerophilic 7y agoOne solution, which I admit is out there, is what if we actively cook the earth? While yes, it would be an engineering challenge, I think it is quite reasonable to create an “adjustable solar shade”. Basically build up enough reflectors at the Lagrange point to selectively “cool” parts of earth. Yes, it would be a massive undertaking, but could potentially be done mostly autonomously. If our timeline is 30 years, this may be more achievable than alternatives. Elevator pitch: use materials from asteroids to build huge reflectors in space. Side benefit is it would enable large scale mining of the sky.
- ForHackernews 7y ago> what if we actively cook the earth? We're already doing that. ;)
- aerophilic 7y agoHeh, Realize I meant “shade” not cook =p. In any case, hopefully intent is clear.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- harimau777 7y agoI'm not sure I follow the author's reasoning. He says that what we do won't make a difference but then says that we should do things anyways. It seems to me like if he's right, then there is just no hope.
- GoodJokes 7y agoJonathan Franzen is a mediocre writer and uh not a scientist. There will be hardships in the future. The poor will feel them the hardest. The rich might eventually feel them too. Franzen has no qualms throwing you into despair because if he feels despair its a very far off despair because he will never feel the consequences of inaction. The guy just straight up said these are my feels so you should believe me.
- gmuslera 7y agoIf it can't be stopped, then we must assume that what could happen will. Like when someone shoots a bullet, and we observe the action in slow motion while the bullet is going, there is no way for the target to move out, and we must assume that a murder has been commited, even if the target is not dead yet. So, in this particular case, a mass murder has been commited, and what we should do to put on trial the ones that shoot the bullet, and the same to the ones that intentionally hid the evidence (maybe taking out our chances to avoid preventing it). And then, without them around keep trying to deny that there is no climate change, we may focus on mitigating the effects and avoiding to get worse without more interference.
- unicornporn 7y agoListen "Deep Adaptation: A Map for Navigating Climate Tragedy": https://www.soundcloud.com/user-56712817/deep-adaptation https://www.soundcloud.com/user-56712817/deep-adaptation Or read it: https://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf https://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf
- Yetanfou 7y agoWhat if we stopped talking in apocalyptic terms and started looking at ways to live on a planet which, for whatever reason, is endowed with an ever-changing climate which has given it everything from dragonflies with a 70cm wing span to blue whales to sentient self-conscious primates with a tendency to speak of terrible things which are about to come true if action is not taken right now. Also, use common sense. It will tell you that it is a good thing to be less dependent on energy sources which are directly linked to one of the most volatile regions in the world. Alternatives exist, from nuclear in its many guises which can take care of the base load to solar and wind which can help but can not take care of the base load due to their inherent unpredictability and - in the case of solar - absence during ~50% of the day. Geothermal can be a good source in many regions. Common sense will also dictate that it is high time to seriously start looking at better ways to store energy so that those unpredictable sources can be used more efficiently while keeping the distribution networks from melting down. And, please... stop following the talking points of political organisations which have taken up the climate banner to further their own goals. Stop the McCarthy-like hunt for anyone who dares to voice a differing opinion. Stop all that polarising nonsense and maybe, just maybe the world will be better off in the end.
- yura 7y agoIs that it? We are all going to die because one fiction writer said so? These kinds of claims only discredit the whole discussion. Climate change is a serious problem, but fearmongering doesn't solve anything. How about just stating the facts, instead of chiming in with your own non-scientific opinions and accusing everyone of pretending? Just so you can get more clicks.