4 ms·

From my perspective, global warming is the overriding problem, because time is running out to stop it. Maybe time has already run out, and it's too late to prev

• bryanlarsen 3y ago
  > time has already run out, and it's too late to prevent the terrible consequences. Climate change is not a binary. We can choose how many terrible consequences it will have. It'll never be too late to prevent some terrible consequences.
  • tovej 3y ago
    By definition, there's a deadline for preventing something from happening. We're already in an extinction cycle, extinctions are happening at a rate of 100 to 1000 times the natural rate. And as for absolutes, total extinction of large mammals comes to mind as a consequence after which humanity can't really do anything.
    • feoren 3y ago
      I think the possible outcomes of climate change (especially if we continue on our current trend) are unthinkably catastrophic, at worst including the potential deaths of a significant percentage of humanity. But there's still an enormous gap between that and "total extinction of large mammals". I don't think that's anywhere near a realistic consequence of climate change.
    • nradov 3y ago
      There is no conceivable future in which white-tailed deer become extinct in the next few centuries. We will probably lose some of the less resilient species, though.
  • moffkalast 3y ago
    With that kind of tomorrowist mindset it'll be too late. We need to make changes and we need to make them yesterday.
    • bryanlarsen 3y ago
      I wrote "we can choose how many terrible consequences we'll have". Do you think that I would choose "as many as possible"?
      • moffkalast 3y ago
        Lately it really seems like that's indeed the answer of those that we've entrusted to make our decisions for us. If it's never too late, then we never have to stop making profit from ecosystem destruction.
        • bryanlarsen 3y ago
          Lately it really seems that everybody is saying "It's too late, we're screwed, so let's not do anything and party like it's 1999".
          • lapcat 3y ago
            This is a misdiagnosis. Lamenting that it's too late is the complete opposite of partying like it's 1999. We're not having fun. It's the climate change denialists who are partying like it's 1999, pretending that nothing has changed, that there's not a problem, and that we don't need to do anything. They're the ones who are complacent. By the way, the lyrics of the song 1999 were very much tongue-in-cheek. Prince had a political streak, he had not given up on caring, and he wrote a number of other political songs, such as "Ronnie Talk to Russia", "Annie Christian", "Free", "America", and "Pop Life".
            • bryanlarsen 3y ago
              I reflected your comment back to you for a reason. Any argument that starts with "It seems like you're saying" is a bad argument. The climate change denialists are hiding behind both of our arguments.
  • lapcat 3y ago
    It's not a continuum either. There are tipping points: think of the ice sheets all melting, the sea levels rising to the point where the coasts of continents are swamped. Moreover, continually adding energy to the system makes it more chaotic, engendering abrupt and unpredictable shifts. We can't necessarily "choose" the consequences in some kind of orderly manner, as if from a menu.
    • AlwaysRock 3y ago
      We also have options that are unpopular/seem bad right now but may not in the future, like solar geoengineering via releasing specific compounds into the atmospheric. Something like that could also likely be achieved, or at least put into motion, by a single desperate nation.
      • lapcat 3y ago
        Was this supposed to make me feel better? The options "seem bad" in the same way that volcanic eruptions seem bad; i.e., they are actually bad. A single deperate nation could also put into motion a nuclear war.
        • Ringz 3y ago
          When one looks at the history of human interventions in ecosystems, one cannot be optimistic. Whether it’s about defending against invasive species or restoring ecosystems to their “original state,” our limited understanding of complex ecosystems inevitably leads to interventions with negative side effects.
        • AlwaysRock 3y ago
          > Maybe time has already run out, and it's too late to prevent the terrible consequences. My point is that there are options for the future. Even if they are not palatable ones. It's not as cut and dry as global warming has already started, it is too late to fix it or mitigate it, and we are all fucked no mater what.
          • 3y ago
• doublepg23 3y ago
  When humanity is still here in 2124 I wonder if there will be a Church of Climate Change that still prophesies the inevitable doomsday.
  • lapcat 3y ago
    > When humanity is still here in 2124 That's an extremely low bar. Especially when the submission title is talking about the world being "much better".
  • acuozzo 3y ago
    Define "still here". If the population goes through a Toba-esque bottleneck due to climate-change-imposed breadbasket failures and there's no free energy (oil) left to bootstrap the world back to complexity similar to today, then is that "still here"? Does "A Canticle For Leibowitz" qualify as "still here"?
    • southernplaces7 3y ago
      Arguments like these do a lot to make so many people roll their eyes at the real dangers of climate change that exist. There isn't a bit of concrete evidence nor serious predictions (not even by the IPCC) that claim climate change will be so bad in the next cnetury as to create a Toba type die-off (which by the way was, if it even affected humanity that severely since this is still heavily debated, caused by massive global cooling instead of warming). Get a grip on the real risks and work from there. Why rabidly lean towards an apocalyptic stance except out of a morbid fetishism that many humans have always had to end of the world predictions?
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    • doublepg23 3y ago
      Have you considered reading the Christian eschatology Wikipedia page? It's easier to go to the source than reinventing it, you can recycle the Latin phrases too - win-win.
• joe_the_user 3y ago
  The inability to solve global warming is itself the result of a small number of wealthy and powerful groups having outsized influence and these groups operating in a fashion so short sighted that they cannot sacrifice their interests to solve the problem.
  • nradov 3y ago
    The inability to solve global warming is itself the result of billions of poor and middle-class people wanting to consume more energy (sometimes indirectly) in order to improve their quality of life. All else being equal, most regular people worldwide would prefer to live in a large private house filled with high-quality manufactured goods, eat a lot of meat, and drive a large comfortable private car. You can argue that this is irrational or unhealthy or that no one really needs so much stuff, but good luck convincing people that they should vote to voluntarily reduce their standard of living in furtherance of somewhat nebulous global goals.
  • mistermann 3y ago
    It's also the result of large numbers of people continuing to support an illusory political system that sustains this status quo. As I see it, the wealthy play a non trivial role in the marketing of the "superiority" of this system, and rare is the person who can seriously consider whether it may(!) objectively be one of the primary root causes, despite the role it plays in setting rules, distributing "information", etc.