7 ms·

We have known this is coming for decades, we have known it will be devastating to the sustainability of human civilization as it exists. Little to nothing has b

We have known this is coming for decades, we have known it will be devastating to the sustainability of human civilization as it exists. Little to nothing has been done in a timely manner. And now it's here. In my opinion there's a kind of Accelerationism going on here, where those who contribute the most to global warming also believe that they will be insulated from the effects, and therefore are the least inclined to address the issue. They're probably not wrong. That is, those with wealth and power believe in climate change - they just don't care if monsoonal crops fail or northern India becomes uninhabitable. Denialism was always a strategy, not a serious strain of thought. Eat the rich.

seizethecheese 3y ago
When you say eat the rich, you’re surely referring to the western middle class (who are the global 1%) right?
- thisiswater 3y ago
  Yes, that is a reasonable response. I will allow the reader to draw their own lines.
- notsound 3y ago
  When you wrote this argument, you're surely referring to what they actually said right?
  - seizethecheese 3y ago
    Yes, the global middle class is insulated from effects they are causing.
swader999 3y ago
Why will it be devastating? More food? Longer growing season? Put it this way, where is humanity suffering from the current hot temperature? Deaths are still far higher due to cold. We are better off now at these CO2 levels than we were in the past century. https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields
- vkou 3y ago
  If you want a long answer, ask a farmer. If you want a short answer 'Because even minor temperature variations play havoc with agricultural output. And 1.5 C isn't minor. Nor is it the limit for climate change - it's just the starting point.'
  - seizethecheese 3y ago
    This is not a satisfying answer. Sure, temp variations affect current farms and what they currently grow, but if you assume adaptation, it’s not so straightforward.
    - sebastianz 3y ago
      That is the point: there are no satisfying answers and the future is increasingly uncertain and unstable.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      It's quite straightforward: The cost of 'adaptation' - moving global food production and populations - is astronomical; it's absurd. Just look at the impact of food logistics disruption in Ukraine.
    - vkou 3y ago
      > but if you assume adaptation Adaptation will require moving tens and hundreds of millions of people, and we live in a world where people were screaming bloody murder over accepting 20,000 refugees that were fleeing a civil war that we have been pouring weapons and missiles into for the past 12 years. We're not interested in adaptation.
      - swader999 3y ago
        Why? Which parts of earth need relocating?
    - pipo234 3y ago
      "Adaptation" means: people moving from places that become uninhabitable (middle east, Africa, India, Latin America) to places that are inhabitable (Europe, USA, Russia, South America), while those people flee to places that become inhabitable (Alaska, Siberia). That's billions of people, trying to cross borders. In the mean time there will be failed harvests and conflicts around the globe. Yes, we'll adapt, human kind in some form will survive, but it's pretty gloomy.
pipo234 3y ago
Accelerationism Learned a new word today, thanks. Had to google that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism Very depressing...
- thisiswater 3y ago
  Acknowledge the sadness, but fight the depression. Act. We can only do our best.
  - pipo234 3y ago
    Indeed. I think I recently heard Cory Doctorow phrase it like this: Both pessimists and optimists are essentially fatalists. Ie.: at the core it's more important to believe you can make a change, than to "know" what "will" happen.
    - dredmorbius 3y ago
      That's Doctorow's prescription of hope rather than "optimism" or "pessimism". Hope reserves agency. Optimism and pessimism both presume an outcome regardless of action, and absolve responsibility.
      - DicIfTEx 3y ago
        As a counterpoint, Derrick Jensen's “Beyond Hope”: https://orionmagazine.org/article/beyond-hope/ https://orionmagazine.org/article/beyond-hope/
        dredmorbius 3y ago
        That reminds me of Ashleigh Brilliant's aphorism: "I feel much better now that I've given up hope". <https://www.ashleighbrilliant.com/book4.html https://www.ashleighbrilliant.com/book4.html> That's more about hope as expectation than hope as possibility, I think. And that's certainly Jensen's vibe. Thanks for the reference.
wolverine876 3y ago
> those who contribute the most to global warming also believe that they will be insulated from the effects I think they are just not facing reality, and that has been normalized by the very effective climate disinformation campaign (i.e., climate denial). People follow the herd, they do what's socially acceptable, and that campaign has made it acceptable enough (which is its goal). The power lies in that campaign (by the same general grouping that uses disinformation for all sorts of other purposes too). That's what needs to be addressed. Fix that and we fix lots of things.
Exoristos 3y ago
"... And now it's here." Well that's a relief. To hear some people talk, you'd think now we'd be living in devastation.
- cdelsolar 3y ago
  We are
ngmc 3y ago
Yep. For a bit more context, here’s the Wikipedia article on climate justice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_justice The “Disproportionality between causality and burden” section makes me sad.
lossolo 3y ago
First, we created colonialism and robbed the Global South of their resources and their future. Then, we exported most of the pollution from our production to the Global South. Now, due to our lifestyle, we are making the Global South pay for climate change, as they are projected to be the most affected based on data. While doing this, we are trying to make ourselves independent from fossil fuels so that we are not dependent on the Middle East anymore. Once we achieve this, we can claim that the Global South is polluting the rest of the world while we are emission-free. We may then threaten sanctions or even invoke casus belli in some cases where our interests are at risk. But hey we are the good guys.
- hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
  This kind of rhetoric doesn't change anything. Everybody needs to feel responsible. The richer countries need to help the poorer ones. Pointing fingers is fine for political activism but when it comes to real action, everybody needs to take it because everybody is affected.
  - lossolo 3y ago
    > The richer countries need to help the poorer ones Of course they need, but I'm not arguing they shouldn't, I'm arguing that we will again exploit them in the process as we always did in our entire history, the only thing that change is the form of exploitation but the exploitation never ended. You have a lot of examples here[1]. We will throw them a few billions to feel good about ourselves so we can look into mirror and say that we are the good guys because we are helping them. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism
    - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
      Lots of ways to criticize cooperation between countries in economic areas, call it exploitation. But for a working person needing a job, it's an armchair distinction. Got a job? Feeding your family? Better than the alternative. I'm just saying, mutual benefit does not equal exploitation.
jibe 3y ago
We have known this is coming for decades, we have known it will be devastating to the sustainability of human civilization as it exists. You are promising devastation to human civilization, but all we have is a hot summer. Even got an end to the drought in California! If you want to fight climate change, you have to be real about it. Doomsday hyperbole backfires and gives ammunition to people who don't acknowledge that the climate has been warming.
- thisiswater 3y ago
  Ocean Acidification: https://ocean.si.edu/conservation/acidification/ocean-acidification-graph https://ocean.si.edu/conservation/acidification/ocean-acidif... Effects of Ocean Acidification on shell formation: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21076 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21076 https://www.epa.gov/ocean-acidification/effects-ocean-and-coastal-acidification-marine-life https://www.epa.gov/ocean-acidification/effects-ocean-and-co... This does not come with a silver lining. Imagine, by rough analogy, the effects on the ecosystem if every bug on the planet began struggling to form its exoskeleton.
  - hackernewds 3y ago
    I think their point applied to your reply is "ok so ocean acidification is happening. so what?". the flood of scientific papers and muddled messaging is what has led to the common populace now really understanding the implications. For better or worse, most people will not click into a nature.com or epa.gov article vs a quick TikTok
29athrowaway 3y ago
Who is going to tell people to have fewer children? or to "lower" their lifestyle? It is taboo. Who is going to tell people that the concept of tourism does not scale? and the most resources you require, the most inefficient you are? Not the political authorities, influencers or people admired due to their lifestyle (who happen to be the most influential). The people compulsively consuming resources should be given some form of mental health support so they stop marsforming the planet.
- Euphorbium 3y ago
  It is venusforming.
- Izkata 3y ago
  > Who is going to tell people to have fewer children? No need really, most (all?) western countries and large swathes of the rest of the world are already below replacement rate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate?useskin=vector#/media/File:Total_Fertility_Rate_Map_by_Country.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fer...
  - 29athrowaway 3y ago
    It took all of human history up to 1800 AD to reach a population of 1 billion. Now, in the next 30 years we will have grown by almost 2 billion. Don't you see the problem?
myshpa 3y ago
> We have known this is coming for decades, we have known it will be devastating to the sustainability of human civilization as it exists. Little to nothing has been done in a timely manner. You're right, we're growing exponentially in a finite environment. https://futureearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/great_accel-12graph-SE.png https://futureearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/great_acc... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Acceleration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Acceleration I wonder how long it will take for the population to accept that the the need for growth is encoded in our system's very structure, in its financial system that prioritizes accumulation, exploitation, and pollution over sustainability and equality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_overshoot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_overshoot We're in overshoot. If we were sane, we would work on reducing our consumption, but instead, everybody's just trying to preserve the business-as-usual path for as long as possible, no matter how unsustainable it is. Maybe we need to start thinking about new ways of managing things.

seizethecheese 3y ago

When you say eat the rich, you’re surely referring to the western middle class (who are the global 1%) right?

thisiswater 3y ago
Yes, that is a reasonable response. I will allow the reader to draw their own lines.
notsound 3y ago
When you wrote this argument, you're surely referring to what they actually said right?
- seizethecheese 3y ago
  Yes, the global middle class is insulated from effects they are causing.

swader999 3y ago

Why will it be devastating? More food? Longer growing season? Put it this way, where is humanity suffering from the current hot temperature? Deaths are still far higher due to cold. We are better off now at these CO2 levels than we were in the past century. https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields

vkou 3y ago
If you want a long answer, ask a farmer. If you want a short answer 'Because even minor temperature variations play havoc with agricultural output. And 1.5 C isn't minor. Nor is it the limit for climate change - it's just the starting point.'
- seizethecheese 3y ago
  This is not a satisfying answer. Sure, temp variations affect current farms and what they currently grow, but if you assume adaptation, it’s not so straightforward.
  - sebastianz 3y ago
    That is the point: there are no satisfying answers and the future is increasingly uncertain and unstable.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    It's quite straightforward: The cost of 'adaptation' - moving global food production and populations - is astronomical; it's absurd. Just look at the impact of food logistics disruption in Ukraine.
  - vkou 3y ago
    > but if you assume adaptation Adaptation will require moving tens and hundreds of millions of people, and we live in a world where people were screaming bloody murder over accepting 20,000 refugees that were fleeing a civil war that we have been pouring weapons and missiles into for the past 12 years. We're not interested in adaptation.
    - swader999 3y ago
      Why? Which parts of earth need relocating?
  - pipo234 3y ago
    "Adaptation" means: people moving from places that become uninhabitable (middle east, Africa, India, Latin America) to places that are inhabitable (Europe, USA, Russia, South America), while those people flee to places that become inhabitable (Alaska, Siberia). That's billions of people, trying to cross borders. In the mean time there will be failed harvests and conflicts around the globe. Yes, we'll adapt, human kind in some form will survive, but it's pretty gloomy.

pipo234 3y ago

Accelerationism Learned a new word today, thanks. Had to google that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism Very depressing...

thisiswater 3y ago
Acknowledge the sadness, but fight the depression. Act. We can only do our best.
- pipo234 3y ago
  Indeed. I think I recently heard Cory Doctorow phrase it like this: Both pessimists and optimists are essentially fatalists. Ie.: at the core it's more important to believe you can make a change, than to "know" what "will" happen.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    That's Doctorow's prescription of hope rather than "optimism" or "pessimism". Hope reserves agency. Optimism and pessimism both presume an outcome regardless of action, and absolve responsibility.
    - DicIfTEx 3y ago
      As a counterpoint, Derrick Jensen's “Beyond Hope”: https://orionmagazine.org/article/beyond-hope/ https://orionmagazine.org/article/beyond-hope/
      - dredmorbius 3y ago
        That reminds me of Ashleigh Brilliant's aphorism: "I feel much better now that I've given up hope". <https://www.ashleighbrilliant.com/book4.html https://www.ashleighbrilliant.com/book4.html> That's more about hope as expectation than hope as possibility, I think. And that's certainly Jensen's vibe. Thanks for the reference.

wolverine876 3y ago

> those who contribute the most to global warming also believe that they will be insulated from the effects I think they are just not facing reality, and that has been normalized by the very effective climate disinformation campaign (i.e., climate denial). People follow the herd, they do what's socially acceptable, and that campaign has made it acceptable enough (which is its goal). The power lies in that campaign (by the same general grouping that uses disinformation for all sorts of other purposes too). That's what needs to be addressed. Fix that and we fix lots of things.

Exoristos 3y ago

"... And now it's here." Well that's a relief. To hear some people talk, you'd think now we'd be living in devastation.

cdelsolar 3y ago
We are

ngmc 3y ago

Yep. For a bit more context, here’s the Wikipedia article on climate justice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_justice The “Disproportionality between causality and burden” section makes me sad.

lossolo 3y ago

First, we created colonialism and robbed the Global South of their resources and their future. Then, we exported most of the pollution from our production to the Global South. Now, due to our lifestyle, we are making the Global South pay for climate change, as they are projected to be the most affected based on data. While doing this, we are trying to make ourselves independent from fossil fuels so that we are not dependent on the Middle East anymore. Once we achieve this, we can claim that the Global South is polluting the rest of the world while we are emission-free. We may then threaten sanctions or even invoke casus belli in some cases where our interests are at risk. But hey we are the good guys.

hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
This kind of rhetoric doesn't change anything. Everybody needs to feel responsible. The richer countries need to help the poorer ones. Pointing fingers is fine for political activism but when it comes to real action, everybody needs to take it because everybody is affected.
- lossolo 3y ago
  > The richer countries need to help the poorer ones Of course they need, but I'm not arguing they shouldn't, I'm arguing that we will again exploit them in the process as we always did in our entire history, the only thing that change is the form of exploitation but the exploitation never ended. You have a lot of examples here[1]. We will throw them a few billions to feel good about ourselves so we can look into mirror and say that we are the good guys because we are helping them. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    Lots of ways to criticize cooperation between countries in economic areas, call it exploitation. But for a working person needing a job, it's an armchair distinction. Got a job? Feeding your family? Better than the alternative. I'm just saying, mutual benefit does not equal exploitation.

jibe 3y ago

We have known this is coming for decades, we have known it will be devastating to the sustainability of human civilization as it exists. You are promising devastation to human civilization, but all we have is a hot summer. Even got an end to the drought in California! If you want to fight climate change, you have to be real about it. Doomsday hyperbole backfires and gives ammunition to people who don't acknowledge that the climate has been warming.

thisiswater 3y ago
Ocean Acidification: https://ocean.si.edu/conservation/acidification/ocean-acidification-graph https://ocean.si.edu/conservation/acidification/ocean-acidif... Effects of Ocean Acidification on shell formation: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21076 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21076 https://www.epa.gov/ocean-acidification/effects-ocean-and-coastal-acidification-marine-life https://www.epa.gov/ocean-acidification/effects-ocean-and-co... This does not come with a silver lining. Imagine, by rough analogy, the effects on the ecosystem if every bug on the planet began struggling to form its exoskeleton.
- hackernewds 3y ago
  I think their point applied to your reply is "ok so ocean acidification is happening. so what?". the flood of scientific papers and muddled messaging is what has led to the common populace now really understanding the implications. For better or worse, most people will not click into a nature.com or epa.gov article vs a quick TikTok

29athrowaway 3y ago

Who is going to tell people to have fewer children? or to "lower" their lifestyle? It is taboo. Who is going to tell people that the concept of tourism does not scale? and the most resources you require, the most inefficient you are? Not the political authorities, influencers or people admired due to their lifestyle (who happen to be the most influential). The people compulsively consuming resources should be given some form of mental health support so they stop marsforming the planet.

Euphorbium 3y ago
It is venusforming.
Izkata 3y ago
> Who is going to tell people to have fewer children? No need really, most (all?) western countries and large swathes of the rest of the world are already below replacement rate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate?useskin=vector#/media/File:Total_Fertility_Rate_Map_by_Country.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fer...
- 29athrowaway 3y ago
  It took all of human history up to 1800 AD to reach a population of 1 billion. Now, in the next 30 years we will have grown by almost 2 billion. Don't you see the problem?

myshpa 3y ago

> We have known this is coming for decades, we have known it will be devastating to the sustainability of human civilization as it exists. Little to nothing has been done in a timely manner. You're right, we're growing exponentially in a finite environment. https://futureearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/great_accel-12graph-SE.png https://futureearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/great_acc... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Acceleration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Acceleration I wonder how long it will take for the population to accept that the the need for growth is encoded in our system's very structure, in its financial system that prioritizes accumulation, exploitation, and pollution over sustainability and equality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_overshoot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_overshoot We're in overshoot. If we were sane, we would work on reducing our consumption, but instead, everybody's just trying to preserve the business-as-usual path for as long as possible, no matter how unsustainable it is. Maybe we need to start thinking about new ways of managing things.