6 ms·

The Earth has many systems which help maintain a balance. It’s happened many times in the past Perhaps whatever is happening now is too extreme for it to do th

The Earth has many systems which help maintain a balance. It’s happened many times in the past Perhaps whatever is happening now is too extreme for it to do that, but it seems unlikely. The ecosystems of the planet share many deep symbioses I know i’ll be downvoted, and i’m expecting no one will actually address what i’ve said while doing it. There’s no real conservation in this topic anymore.

croes 3y ago
But in the past we weren't 8 billion people who travel around the world. Pretty large food base for a more temperature adapted predator, especially the tiny ones we don't see.
6LLvveMx2koXfwn 3y ago
Nice Freudian slip!
jgwil2 3y ago
Nobody is suggesting that the Earth itself is under threat. The biosphere will survive but humans, especially those in poorer regions, stand to suffer greatly, and many consider it a moral imperative to mitigate that suffering. The best way to do that would seem to be avoiding the most rapid and dramatic climatic changes in order to give people and ecosystems time to adapt.
- alfor 3y ago
  The poor are affected now by our current energy policy. We should save the poor now instead of the hypothetical poor impacted in the future. In fact the climate change policies reveal that we don’t care at all about the poor as we would save far more if we were concern about them instead of CO2. The more you research this the more you will find the whole movement disingenuous at best.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- beerpls 3y ago
  Let’s be real, the poorest are only not suffering as it is because of all the marvels of the industrialization onward It’s somewhat ironic to say that we need to stop the systems which have helped so many poor people so that we don’t cause harm to poor people
  - jgwil2 3y ago
    The benefits of industrialization have accrued primarily to the rich; the negative consequences will be borne largely by the poor. But in any case no one is seriously trying to stop industrial civilization; we are (slowly, inadequately) trying to transition it to more sustainable foundations.
alfor 3y ago
I agree with you. The threat is far overblow. Slowly the tide is turning and more people start to see that it’s not the end of the world. Mostly a positive feedback loop of media, government, research that all finance each others. Frankly with AI and nuclear threat at this moment I don’t know why people are concern with CO2, the timeline is so far away.

croes 3y ago

But in the past we weren't 8 billion people who travel around the world. Pretty large food base for a more temperature adapted predator, especially the tiny ones we don't see.

6LLvveMx2koXfwn 3y ago

Nice Freudian slip!

jgwil2 3y ago

Nobody is suggesting that the Earth itself is under threat. The biosphere will survive but humans, especially those in poorer regions, stand to suffer greatly, and many consider it a moral imperative to mitigate that suffering. The best way to do that would seem to be avoiding the most rapid and dramatic climatic changes in order to give people and ecosystems time to adapt.

alfor 3y ago
The poor are affected now by our current energy policy. We should save the poor now instead of the hypothetical poor impacted in the future. In fact the climate change policies reveal that we don’t care at all about the poor as we would save far more if we were concern about them instead of CO2. The more you research this the more you will find the whole movement disingenuous at best.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
beerpls 3y ago
Let’s be real, the poorest are only not suffering as it is because of all the marvels of the industrialization onward It’s somewhat ironic to say that we need to stop the systems which have helped so many poor people so that we don’t cause harm to poor people
- jgwil2 3y ago
  The benefits of industrialization have accrued primarily to the rich; the negative consequences will be borne largely by the poor. But in any case no one is seriously trying to stop industrial civilization; we are (slowly, inadequately) trying to transition it to more sustainable foundations.

alfor 3y ago

I agree with you. The threat is far overblow. Slowly the tide is turning and more people start to see that it’s not the end of the world. Mostly a positive feedback loop of media, government, research that all finance each others. Frankly with AI and nuclear threat at this moment I don’t know why people are concern with CO2, the timeline is so far away.