5 ms·

Calling it a point of no return suggests that, once passed, we are free to go on sinning

by brian-armstrong 3y ago

Ekaros 3y ago
If we can't win isn't it better to have as much fun as we can when we still can?
- raffraffraff 3y ago
  Nah. It's still a case of "exactly how bad do you really want it to be?"
willcipriano 3y ago
How dare you, it's already too late! https://web.archive.org/web/20230307215203/https://twitter.com/gretathunberg/status/1009757391515156480 https://web.archive.org/web/20230307215203/https://twitter.c...
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  It might be. They didn't say we'd all be dead in 5 years, just that we'd possibly pass a tipping point. I guess we'll find out.
- latexr 3y ago
  Every reply on that thread either misunderstood the claim or is arguing in bad faith. The quote doesn’t mean “everyone will be dead in five years unless we stop using fossil fuels before then”, it means “unless we stop using fossil fuels in the next five years, everyone will die at a later point as a consequence of the irreparable damage”. Do you understand the difference?
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    Right, and we didn't so no point in trying now since we are all going to die anyway.* *or the climate scientists are wrong again
    - latexr 3y ago
      We’re all going to die, climate change or not. But you can die sooner and in greater pain or later and more comfortably. Which do you prefer? If you had a chronic disease, would you take medicine to stave off the adverse effects and preserve your quality of life for longer? Or would you throw your hands up and let the disease ravage you since there’s no cure? And remember: in the case of climate change your decision doesn’t affect only you but others as well.
      - willcipriano 3y ago
        Want to do analogies, let's do analogies. What if you had a doctor who told you to stop eating ice cream or you were going to die. He keeps making predictions, you'll have a heart attack in 5 years, you'll get diabetes in 6 years, you'll be dead within the decade. The years pass and his predictions don't come true. Worse yet, you find out that he has a fridge full of Ben and Jerry's at home and publicly supports government funded ice cream socials (wars). At what point would you stop trusting the experts? Keep in mind it's really hot in many parts of the world and their economies could really use some ice cream.
        latexr 3y ago
        You’ve lost me. Are you claiming that climate change isn’t getting worse and that climate scientists support wars? I don’t want to mischaracterise your point, I’m genuinely not sure if I understand it.
        999029190 3y ago
        I'm not OP, but I'm claiming exactly that. I'll go further. I don't even consider so-called climate scientists "scientists."
latexr 3y ago
That’s an interesting observation. I would hope that as a species we’d realise that beyond the point of no return there’s still a path that we can take to make the outcome less painful instead of going scorched earth (pardon the expression) but I’m under no illusion that will be the case.
yongjik 3y ago
Yeah, I really don't like this kind of messaging, because (in all likelihood) humanity will blast past those "points of no return," all ten of them, and after that the dialogue is going to be awkward.
sacnoradhq 3y ago
Notwithstanding all of the climate change deniers and shills around still arguing nonsense. The problem is saying there is an arbitrary boundary of no hope. The danger is in the learned helplessness this reinforces and the lack of action it suggests. This is an ongoing existential emergency to the survival of all life on the planet. The result will be a desertified Earth if nothing is done. What must happen immediately are draconian policy prescriptions that require leadership. This is because industries and people will not stop polluting voluntarily because they view it as their right to pollute and ruin the planet because they did it yesterday and they want their profits, their hamburgers, or doing burnouts in their ICE sports car. "Because I want, I will do whatever I want" is their logic. It's a Tragedy of the Commons at present that cannot be resolved by asking nicely. Fossil fuels, meat agriculture, open clinker refinement, and more will have to change, and there is an urgent need for bio carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at scale that isn't anything remotely like #TeamTrees that actually takes carbon from the atmosphere and disposes of it somewhere safe for millions of years in an economical manner (preindustrials levels can be reached for under $25-30 T).

Calling it a point of no return suggests that, once passed, we are free to go on sinning

Ekaros 3y ago

If we can't win isn't it better to have as much fun as we can when we still can?

raffraffraff 3y ago
Nah. It's still a case of "exactly how bad do you really want it to be?"

willcipriano 3y ago

How dare you, it's already too late! https://web.archive.org/web/20230307215203/https://twitter.com/gretathunberg/status/1009757391515156480 https://web.archive.org/web/20230307215203/https://twitter.c...

ZeroGravitas 3y ago
It might be. They didn't say we'd all be dead in 5 years, just that we'd possibly pass a tipping point. I guess we'll find out.
latexr 3y ago
Every reply on that thread either misunderstood the claim or is arguing in bad faith. The quote doesn’t mean “everyone will be dead in five years unless we stop using fossil fuels before then”, it means “unless we stop using fossil fuels in the next five years, everyone will die at a later point as a consequence of the irreparable damage”. Do you understand the difference?
- willcipriano 3y ago
  Right, and we didn't so no point in trying now since we are all going to die anyway.* *or the climate scientists are wrong again
  - latexr 3y ago
    We’re all going to die, climate change or not. But you can die sooner and in greater pain or later and more comfortably. Which do you prefer? If you had a chronic disease, would you take medicine to stave off the adverse effects and preserve your quality of life for longer? Or would you throw your hands up and let the disease ravage you since there’s no cure? And remember: in the case of climate change your decision doesn’t affect only you but others as well.
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      Want to do analogies, let's do analogies. What if you had a doctor who told you to stop eating ice cream or you were going to die. He keeps making predictions, you'll have a heart attack in 5 years, you'll get diabetes in 6 years, you'll be dead within the decade. The years pass and his predictions don't come true. Worse yet, you find out that he has a fridge full of Ben and Jerry's at home and publicly supports government funded ice cream socials (wars). At what point would you stop trusting the experts? Keep in mind it's really hot in many parts of the world and their economies could really use some ice cream.
      - latexr 3y ago
        You’ve lost me. Are you claiming that climate change isn’t getting worse and that climate scientists support wars? I don’t want to mischaracterise your point, I’m genuinely not sure if I understand it.
        999029190 3y ago
        I'm not OP, but I'm claiming exactly that. I'll go further. I don't even consider so-called climate scientists "scientists."

latexr 3y ago

That’s an interesting observation. I would hope that as a species we’d realise that beyond the point of no return there’s still a path that we can take to make the outcome less painful instead of going scorched earth (pardon the expression) but I’m under no illusion that will be the case.

yongjik 3y ago

Yeah, I really don't like this kind of messaging, because (in all likelihood) humanity will blast past those "points of no return," all ten of them, and after that the dialogue is going to be awkward.

sacnoradhq 3y ago

Notwithstanding all of the climate change deniers and shills around still arguing nonsense. The problem is saying there is an arbitrary boundary of no hope. The danger is in the learned helplessness this reinforces and the lack of action it suggests. This is an ongoing existential emergency to the survival of all life on the planet. The result will be a desertified Earth if nothing is done. What must happen immediately are draconian policy prescriptions that require leadership. This is because industries and people will not stop polluting voluntarily because they view it as their right to pollute and ruin the planet because they did it yesterday and they want their profits, their hamburgers, or doing burnouts in their ICE sports car. "Because I want, I will do whatever I want" is their logic. It's a Tragedy of the Commons at present that cannot be resolved by asking nicely. Fossil fuels, meat agriculture, open clinker refinement, and more will have to change, and there is an urgent need for bio carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at scale that isn't anything remotely like #TeamTrees that actually takes carbon from the atmosphere and disposes of it somewhere safe for millions of years in an economical manner (preindustrials levels can be reached for under $25-30 T).