5 ms·

This will make skin cancers slightly more prevalent in southern latitudes but I can’t see any other changes that aren’t marginal. It isn’t great but we are not

This will make skin cancers slightly more prevalent in southern latitudes but I can’t see any other changes that aren’t marginal. It isn’t great but we are not “fucked” by any means.

brunoqc 3y ago
[flagged]
- PheonixPharts 3y ago
  > We deserve to burn. As quite a bit of a doomer myself, I think this attitude is extremely dangerous and really an incorrect view of the situation. Blame is inevitable when facing despair, but I think it's not a great idea to turn this into an issue about blaming yourself or others. Human beings are terrible at long term risk/reward reasoning. But this is a pretty expected consequence of any evolved species. There is zero pressure in the evolutionary system to encourage a species to develop the ability to both reason about very long term events, and act on them. Evolutionary forces just don't respond to things on this time scale. Climate change has always had the problem that the easier it was to solve, the more uncertain we were about it's effects. In 1900 we could have easily just stopped progressing, learned to become sustainable and avoided climate change at very little cost. But how would anyone seriously believe and be concerned about an existential threat to their great, great grandchildren? As the existential risk of climate change becomes more obvious, the cost to avoid it increases dramatically. There is no stopping climate change now, and even limiting its impact (which we can always do) would require a massive disruption to our way of life. We're fighting wars right now to access more fossil fuels, we aren't ready to seriously start keeping them in the ground. Our tragedy as a species is that we can see how to avoid climate change but are unable to act on it by our nature. If anything us all being "fucked" should evoke a sense of pathos. We're no different than any other living organism exposed to sources of non-renewable, cheap, high density energy. The yeast that die making the alcohol in our beer suffer the same local climate catastrophe as we will.
  - brunoqc 3y ago
    > We're no different than any other living organism exposed to sources of non-renewable, cheap, high density energy. But we have money, the only thing we really care about. We live on a rich rock but for some reason, the whole planet is bankrupt. It's like if we got stolen by our ancestors and we dumbasses like to keep this tradition alive, maybe hoping that we will, us individually, one day, get richer than the guy next door, and feel superior, and maybe, happy.
- dmichulke 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - junon 3y ago
    Yeesh, I don't agree with them but don't put words and ideas in their mouth. What an incredibly unfair comment.
    - dmichulke 3y ago
      You literally wrote that my kids and I deserve to burn, so there's that. I don't feel offended because I don't think that was your intention but it was what you said.
ClassyJacket 3y ago
No, but we are fucked from climate change.
- lovecg 3y ago
  Nah, people will just buy more A/Cs. But the ecosystem collapse will do us in.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  Again I disagree. The worst predictions for climate change are not based on very solid models. There are lots of clever people who are skeptical of the doomerism. As an example, the claim that more people will die from heat waves is correct, but when you compare it to the people who won’t die from cold weather then climate change is a net benefit! And in terms of environmental collapses, things like the health of ocean ecosystems is more dependent on human activities like overfishing. Focusing on climate change to fix these problems is nonsensical.
  - yreg 3y ago
    What about ocean acidification? That is connected to CO2 in the atmosphere and had a good chance of leading to collapse of marine ecosystems, no?
    - brutusborn 3y ago
      That is definitely my biggest worry ocean-wise. I haven’t read many acidification papers but the impression I get is that ocean absorption of CO2 is relatively slow so we will only start to see noticeable changes on the order of centuries. If these problems occur faster than we can decarbonise then we will need to geoengineer ocean chemistry. Although this is a plan B, we will be able to implement it before there are significant enough changes to cause a collapse.

This will make skin cancers slightly more prevalent in southern latitudes but I can’t see any other changes that aren’t marginal. It isn’t great but we are not “fucked” by any means.

brunoqc 3y ago

[flagged]

PheonixPharts 3y ago
> We deserve to burn. As quite a bit of a doomer myself, I think this attitude is extremely dangerous and really an incorrect view of the situation. Blame is inevitable when facing despair, but I think it's not a great idea to turn this into an issue about blaming yourself or others. Human beings are terrible at long term risk/reward reasoning. But this is a pretty expected consequence of any evolved species. There is zero pressure in the evolutionary system to encourage a species to develop the ability to both reason about very long term events, and act on them. Evolutionary forces just don't respond to things on this time scale. Climate change has always had the problem that the easier it was to solve, the more uncertain we were about it's effects. In 1900 we could have easily just stopped progressing, learned to become sustainable and avoided climate change at very little cost. But how would anyone seriously believe and be concerned about an existential threat to their great, great grandchildren? As the existential risk of climate change becomes more obvious, the cost to avoid it increases dramatically. There is no stopping climate change now, and even limiting its impact (which we can always do) would require a massive disruption to our way of life. We're fighting wars right now to access more fossil fuels, we aren't ready to seriously start keeping them in the ground. Our tragedy as a species is that we can see how to avoid climate change but are unable to act on it by our nature. If anything us all being "fucked" should evoke a sense of pathos. We're no different than any other living organism exposed to sources of non-renewable, cheap, high density energy. The yeast that die making the alcohol in our beer suffer the same local climate catastrophe as we will.
- brunoqc 3y ago
  > We're no different than any other living organism exposed to sources of non-renewable, cheap, high density energy. But we have money, the only thing we really care about. We live on a rich rock but for some reason, the whole planet is bankrupt. It's like if we got stolen by our ancestors and we dumbasses like to keep this tradition alive, maybe hoping that we will, us individually, one day, get richer than the guy next door, and feel superior, and maybe, happy.
dmichulke 3y ago
[flagged]
- junon 3y ago
  Yeesh, I don't agree with them but don't put words and ideas in their mouth. What an incredibly unfair comment.
  - dmichulke 3y ago
    You literally wrote that my kids and I deserve to burn, so there's that. I don't feel offended because I don't think that was your intention but it was what you said.

ClassyJacket 3y ago

No, but we are fucked from climate change.

lovecg 3y ago
Nah, people will just buy more A/Cs. But the ecosystem collapse will do us in.
brutusborn 3y ago
Again I disagree. The worst predictions for climate change are not based on very solid models. There are lots of clever people who are skeptical of the doomerism. As an example, the claim that more people will die from heat waves is correct, but when you compare it to the people who won’t die from cold weather then climate change is a net benefit! And in terms of environmental collapses, things like the health of ocean ecosystems is more dependent on human activities like overfishing. Focusing on climate change to fix these problems is nonsensical.
- yreg 3y ago
  What about ocean acidification? That is connected to CO2 in the atmosphere and had a good chance of leading to collapse of marine ecosystems, no?
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    That is definitely my biggest worry ocean-wise. I haven’t read many acidification papers but the impression I get is that ocean absorption of CO2 is relatively slow so we will only start to see noticeable changes on the order of centuries. If these problems occur faster than we can decarbonise then we will need to geoengineer ocean chemistry. Although this is a plan B, we will be able to implement it before there are significant enough changes to cause a collapse.