6 ms·

climate change is always framed in terms of how many coastal people it will affect when sea levels rise a few meters. the canadian wildfires going on now. the o

climate change is always framed in terms of how many coastal people it will affect when sea levels rise a few meters. the canadian wildfires going on now. the only thing i hear about it in the media is how bad the air quality will be in this or that city, or how many oil/gas/logging jobs will be lost. the amount wildlife that is being displaced or burned alive? fuck it! did you hear that 10k humans had to be evacuated! rarely does anyone talk about the rapid collapse of entire ecosystems and disappearance of millions of species in short order. coral bleaching gets a passing mention, cause us scuba divers notice how shitty the scenery is becoming. pollution is a problem for individuals to solve; "just recycle!", the plastic/oil lobby shouts at us. we don't deserve this planet. but it will recover a few million years after we're gone. the industrial revolution was both the best and the worst thing that ever happened to humanity. we don't have a chance in hell of living even 5% as long as the dinosaurs did; not here, not on mars.

smrtinsert 3y ago
Forget where I saw this, but we won't "save the planet", it will save itself by getting rid of us.
- leeoniya 3y ago
  George Carlin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c&themeRefresh=1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c&themeRefresh=1 i will say that saving (preserving) the planet for your children is still a form of "saving" it. english's lack of nuance here is unfortunate, but also makes for some hilarious puns :D
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- tw04 3y ago
  Tool made a song about it back in 1996: https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/tool/nema.html https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/tool/nema.html
themitigating 3y ago
Pollution is a problem for everyone. We need government regulations and every single person changing their lifestyle but guess what, it won't happen. We had peak awareness in the 80s and 90s, I remember in school time was dedicated to ecology and the environment. Now half the US is actively working against environmentalism. You're blaming the media for not talking about species going extint but about flooding. If people don't change even with the threat of human life being lost then there's no way they care if multiple species of birds goes extinct. We've created a culture where being selfish is acceptable. Where polluting by modifying your vehicle is cool. Where caring about the environment makes you part of a conspiracy and who do you blame? The media for not talking about it more.
- leeoniya 3y ago
  > If people don't change even with the threat of human life being lost then there's no way they care if multiple species of birds goes extinct. people won't change. they are addicted to convenience, low prices, diversity in options, and unlimited availability. which is also great for corporate profits. as a species, humans plan and invest very little beyond our own lifetimes. but we're just animals after all. all the talk about becoming an interplanetary (mars) species for our own survival has to be the most absurd statement that can be made to dismiss the very real problems we should solve here first. but billionaires need an excuse to play Tony Stark. it's not cool or profitable to do the boring work of unfucking ourselves.
  - themitigating 3y ago
    Bullshit. That's cultural. Look at nordic countries. Norway has a seed vault and has 80% of new cars are electric. Renewables in Europe are still moving at great speed https://www.energymonitor.ai/tech/renewables/europe-renewables-in-2022-in-five-charts-and-what-to-expect-in-2023/ https://www.energymonitor.ai/tech/renewables/europe-renewabl... You just won't say the real people who are to blame. You want to lay the blame on all people equally
    - leeoniya 3y ago
nostromo 3y ago
The article mentions habitat destruction and agriculture as the driving issue, not climate change. > The hardest hit were grassland birds, down by more than 50 percent, mostly due to the expansion of farms that turn a varied landscape into acres of neat, plowed rows.
- leeoniya 3y ago
  pollution, habitat destruction, and climate change are not all different things. i guess you can blame all the above on a single root cause, though: human over-population. we just don't have plagues and famines like we used to; we're really good at killing everything that we don't like. i see my neighbors dousing their lawn with weed killer and pesticides every season, followed by grass nutrients! then burn 2gal of gasoline to mow that lawn every week. nothing better than an insect-less, uniform green lawn!
  - hasmanean 3y ago
    Not over-population. Over consumption. Actually over-production since a lot of food is wasted before consumption.
    - foobarian 3y ago
      But why is over-consumption even possible? It's the plentiful cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels that we figured out how to tap into. Once that is gone I am hopeful the next civilization cycle will be more temperate.
      - ryandrake 3y ago
        More likely once the current civilization’s cheap source of energy is gone, the next civilization will revert to the pre-industrial source of cheap energy: slavery.
        darkerside 3y ago
aperson_hello 3y ago
Who are we kidding...It'll recover within a century or so without humans. Millions of years for birds to re-evolve, but general recovery happens pretty quickly!! We're getting bombarded with messages from the fossil fuel industry like "recycle," "ban nuclear," "ban straws," "ban plastic bags" that distract from the industry's real impact. If we want to solve the problem, we have to focus on the core issue: burning fossil fuels. We're at a potentially species-ending crossroads - and we're moving towards saving ourselves. But it'll take actual focus on the problem to solve it instead of looking for perfect solutions to everything.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  > and we're moving towards saving ourselves I'd say we're still moving away from that.
- therealdrag0 3y ago
  Extinct animals won’t recover in a few centuries and humans are way more adaptable than most animals.
dec0dedab0de 3y ago
The coral reefs are another huge problem. Most fish species spend some time of their life in one, and a staggering amount have been destroyed. Last year I volunteered for a few hours at a coral nursery, they said 90% of coral has been destroyed[1] since the 70s. I'm not sure if they meant just barrier reefs,just around Florida, or everywhere, but in any case it's already a disaster. [1] I tried to Google to verify that number and found a bunch of different numbers with different qualifiers.
MattGaiser 3y ago
If you aren't motivated by smoke in your lungs, you aren't going to be motivated by coral destruction.
xwdv 3y ago
We don’t deserve this planet, but also we don’t owe this world a thing. Fact is, humanity’s fate was sealed the moment we decided to stop living like savage animals and become civilized. As simple creatures, humans could live indefinitely until the world ends or a major extinction event, but surviving as a civilization for millions of years is definitely going to take the sacrifice of a couple planets along the way, at the rate we’re growing. No way around that. When we’re done with Earth, we will have to use the resources of several more planets, and we will continue this until we reach some stable equilibrium or simply die out entirely. That’s assuming we don’t start implementing some rigorous eugenics and population control, but that does not seem popular, though personally I think it’s a better solution than having an unquenchable thirst for natural resources.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ip26 3y ago
10% of the US population does not have food security. 25% lives paycheck to paycheck. The simple truth is people don’t have room in their lives to worry about abstract problems that don’t impact them when their basic needs are not met. Just look to the advance of the desert. People cut down vegetation to burn for cooking, and hasten desertification. But what choice do they have? They need to eat. Environmentalists are increasingly starting to view poverty reduction and fostering economic opportunity as a critical first step in wildlife protection.
hanniabu 3y ago
And next at 11, hear how cher chooses her outfits followed by sports
DuckFeathers 3y ago
[dead]

smrtinsert 3y ago

Forget where I saw this, but we won't "save the planet", it will save itself by getting rid of us.

leeoniya 3y ago
George Carlin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c&themeRefresh=1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c&themeRefresh=1 i will say that saving (preserving) the planet for your children is still a form of "saving" it. english's lack of nuance here is unfortunate, but also makes for some hilarious puns :D
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
tw04 3y ago
Tool made a song about it back in 1996: https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/tool/nema.html https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/tool/nema.html

themitigating 3y ago

Pollution is a problem for everyone. We need government regulations and every single person changing their lifestyle but guess what, it won't happen. We had peak awareness in the 80s and 90s, I remember in school time was dedicated to ecology and the environment. Now half the US is actively working against environmentalism. You're blaming the media for not talking about species going extint but about flooding. If people don't change even with the threat of human life being lost then there's no way they care if multiple species of birds goes extinct. We've created a culture where being selfish is acceptable. Where polluting by modifying your vehicle is cool. Where caring about the environment makes you part of a conspiracy and who do you blame? The media for not talking about it more.

leeoniya 3y ago
> If people don't change even with the threat of human life being lost then there's no way they care if multiple species of birds goes extinct. people won't change. they are addicted to convenience, low prices, diversity in options, and unlimited availability. which is also great for corporate profits. as a species, humans plan and invest very little beyond our own lifetimes. but we're just animals after all. all the talk about becoming an interplanetary (mars) species for our own survival has to be the most absurd statement that can be made to dismiss the very real problems we should solve here first. but billionaires need an excuse to play Tony Stark. it's not cool or profitable to do the boring work of unfucking ourselves.
- themitigating 3y ago
  Bullshit. That's cultural. Look at nordic countries. Norway has a seed vault and has 80% of new cars are electric. Renewables in Europe are still moving at great speed https://www.energymonitor.ai/tech/renewables/europe-renewables-in-2022-in-five-charts-and-what-to-expect-in-2023/ https://www.energymonitor.ai/tech/renewables/europe-renewabl... You just won't say the real people who are to blame. You want to lay the blame on all people equally
  - leeoniya 3y ago

nostromo 3y ago

The article mentions habitat destruction and agriculture as the driving issue, not climate change. > The hardest hit were grassland birds, down by more than 50 percent, mostly due to the expansion of farms that turn a varied landscape into acres of neat, plowed rows.

leeoniya 3y ago
pollution, habitat destruction, and climate change are not all different things. i guess you can blame all the above on a single root cause, though: human over-population. we just don't have plagues and famines like we used to; we're really good at killing everything that we don't like. i see my neighbors dousing their lawn with weed killer and pesticides every season, followed by grass nutrients! then burn 2gal of gasoline to mow that lawn every week. nothing better than an insect-less, uniform green lawn!
- hasmanean 3y ago
  Not over-population. Over consumption. Actually over-production since a lot of food is wasted before consumption.
  - foobarian 3y ago
    But why is over-consumption even possible? It's the plentiful cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels that we figured out how to tap into. Once that is gone I am hopeful the next civilization cycle will be more temperate.
    - ryandrake 3y ago
      More likely once the current civilization’s cheap source of energy is gone, the next civilization will revert to the pre-industrial source of cheap energy: slavery.
      - darkerside 3y ago

aperson_hello 3y ago

Who are we kidding...It'll recover within a century or so without humans. Millions of years for birds to re-evolve, but general recovery happens pretty quickly!! We're getting bombarded with messages from the fossil fuel industry like "recycle," "ban nuclear," "ban straws," "ban plastic bags" that distract from the industry's real impact. If we want to solve the problem, we have to focus on the core issue: burning fossil fuels. We're at a potentially species-ending crossroads - and we're moving towards saving ourselves. But it'll take actual focus on the problem to solve it instead of looking for perfect solutions to everything.

jacquesm 3y ago
> and we're moving towards saving ourselves I'd say we're still moving away from that.
therealdrag0 3y ago
Extinct animals won’t recover in a few centuries and humans are way more adaptable than most animals.

dec0dedab0de 3y ago

The coral reefs are another huge problem. Most fish species spend some time of their life in one, and a staggering amount have been destroyed. Last year I volunteered for a few hours at a coral nursery, they said 90% of coral has been destroyed[1] since the 70s. I'm not sure if they meant just barrier reefs,just around Florida, or everywhere, but in any case it's already a disaster. [1] I tried to Google to verify that number and found a bunch of different numbers with different qualifiers.

MattGaiser 3y ago

If you aren't motivated by smoke in your lungs, you aren't going to be motivated by coral destruction.

xwdv 3y ago

We don’t deserve this planet, but also we don’t owe this world a thing. Fact is, humanity’s fate was sealed the moment we decided to stop living like savage animals and become civilized. As simple creatures, humans could live indefinitely until the world ends or a major extinction event, but surviving as a civilization for millions of years is definitely going to take the sacrifice of a couple planets along the way, at the rate we’re growing. No way around that. When we’re done with Earth, we will have to use the resources of several more planets, and we will continue this until we reach some stable equilibrium or simply die out entirely. That’s assuming we don’t start implementing some rigorous eugenics and population control, but that does not seem popular, though personally I think it’s a better solution than having an unquenchable thirst for natural resources.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ip26 3y ago

10% of the US population does not have food security. 25% lives paycheck to paycheck. The simple truth is people don’t have room in their lives to worry about abstract problems that don’t impact them when their basic needs are not met. Just look to the advance of the desert. People cut down vegetation to burn for cooking, and hasten desertification. But what choice do they have? They need to eat. Environmentalists are increasingly starting to view poverty reduction and fostering economic opportunity as a critical first step in wildlife protection.

hanniabu 3y ago

And next at 11, hear how cher chooses her outfits followed by sports

DuckFeathers 3y ago

[dead]