4 ms·
> My bet is within 20 years we'll see it as the more immediate problem than global warming. I don't want to diminish the importance of a paradigm shift in how
by badRNG 4y ago
> My bet is within 20 years we'll see it as the more immediate problem than global warming.
I don't want to diminish the importance of a paradigm shift in how regulators treat various chemicals, but I don't think this will be anywhere near as severe and immediate threat as climate change.
Ultimately, if there is a substantial pool of people who's fertility is not adversely impacted by some yet to be identified chemical, then it will be those people who's genes will pass on. Within a generation we as a species will have developed resistance to at least the impact on fertility by some unregulated chemical.
- FeepingCreature 4y agoUltimately, if there's a substantial pool of people who are not existentially threatened by global warming...
- TeMPOraL 4y agoIn both cases, a substantial part of this pool depends on the modern institutions and global supply chains for survival, which are existentially threatened by both climate change and population reduction.
- ipaddr 4y agoGlobal warming importance as an issue is slowly fading as the world is changing. Make room for new issues.
- jesterson 4y agoSpot on. There is substantial amount of companies/people profiteering from climate change fearmongering, so we may expect the trend not to go down very fast
- abenga 4y agoReally? I get the sense we (as in all of us collectively) are not taking it seriously enough. I wonder where this "fearmongering" is happening. A lot of stuff that is happening (the Western US drought that seems to be the worst in a millenium plus the consequent heavy use of groundwater, triple dip la nina, etc.) seem like they should worry us more than they actually are.
- jesterson 4y agoWhat you describing is your personal perception, based (like most of us) on what is circulating in media. Objectively, “climate change” was happening on this planet allegedly since it was born 4.6 billion years ago. It’s a natural course of things. To understand the scope of fear mongering you can look what “priests” were saying 10 years ago and how much of their predictions came out as true. It’s quite interesting. They use shortness of human memory.
- the_only_law 4y ago> Objectively, “climate change” was happening on this planet allegedly since it was born 4.6 billion years ago. It’s a natural course of thing By this logic, plenty of species have died out in the 4.6 billion years of earth and so we should do nothing about the demographic crisis in many countries. After all it’s all just life and life will go on.
- jesterson 4y agoAnd that’s true. What can you do to avoid “demographic crisis”? Thinking you (or we as a society) can change course of things is very flattering, however flowed it is. You can try to change global things like earth orbit or natural course of time with same result. To understand how stupid “climate change” ideas are, you can simply look if it’s preachers are doing anything following their preachings. They fly private jets and then tell regular people about “offsetting carbon footprint”. It’s all about money and power, nothing else. Climate change is of no interest to them.
- 4y ago
- eternityforest 4y agoWhich could be an issue by itself, as whatever mutation confers resistance to it could have side effects, unless it's some enhanced degradation of toxins or something. But what if it's some other random thing that also gives people heart attacks?