3 ms·
The difference is that an asteroid is an existential threat to humanity while climate change is just short of that. The rich and powerful are always going to b
by slg 5y ago
The difference is that an asteroid is an existential threat to humanity while climate change is just short of that. The rich and powerful are always going to be protected from experiencing the worst aspects of climate change.
They won't be the ones working outside when the air quality is dangerous from wildfires. They aren't going to be the ones who can't sleep because it is 90 degrees in their home. They won't be stuck in the path of a hurricane without anywhere to evacuate to. They won't be the ones who are left homeless and penniless due to a flood. They won't be the ones who can no longer afford the high prices of food or water. They won't be the ones fighting in wars over dwindling resources. Short of those future resource wars going nuclear, they don't really have to fear climate change the same way the rest of us do.
And if their primary fear of climate change is decreased wealth, it isn't a surprise why that wouldn't be enough for them to sacrifice their current wealth.
- Diederich 5y ago> The difference is that an asteroid is an existential threat to humanity while climate change is just short of that. This is a valid point. To clarify, though, I don't think climate change is likely to make humans extinct, but I believe it has a non-trivial chance of destroying our civilization. If/when the climate gets really bad, human irrationality will go into overdrive, and we'll be a massive danger to ourselves.
- taylodl 5y agoWho knows if climate change will be an extinction event for humanity? When things get dire humanity turns to war and there's a lot of nuclear armaments at our disposal. Would it be insane to wage such warfare? Yes. But when crops are failing, cattle are dying and our civilization is undergoing extreme duress don't rule out our resorting to the insane. I think the hope is we're 50-150 years (or more) from things getting that dire and perhaps we'll have a technological solution to the problem. I hope so, but hope is not a strategy.
- Bombthecat 5y agoIt will destroy our civilization, i dont know what people expect when we hit 4 plus..
- noobly 5y ago> The difference is that an asteroid is an existential threat to humanity while climate change is just short of that. And you can see an asteroid heading straight for you, anyone skeptical could just get, or borrow, a scope. I don't think an asteroid collision would induce a politicized disinfo campaign personally, it's too concrete.
- jaredklewis 5y agoI think it's hard to know. I would have thought the earth being round was "too concrete" to dispute, but here we are.
- noobly 5y agoWell, to be fair, you can't see curvature with your own eyes like you can an asteroid, at least not feasibly/easily. Your ancestors lived in a world where thinking it was round was stupid..
- addandsubtract 5y agoWould you be able to see an asteroid heading straight for the south pole if you're living in the northern hemisphere?
- noobly 5y agoGiven that the earth is constantly moving around the sun, probably? e.g, when the asteroid is really far away, like years, but still on track to hit the South Pole at some time, it could be viewable. But if the earth was stationary, then no, probably not.
- future_i_snow 5y agoGood ol' bois of 4/8-chan et.al. might do it for the lulz. People commiting suicide because of their bullying isn't concrete enough, an asteroid might not be either.
- Bombthecat 5y agoWe will hit 4 plus in fifty years. They will be affected, no matter where they live or how rich they will be.