6 ms·

You know what would be less drastic? Fucking stop emitting as much carbon. Solutions are there: Less livestock farming, less cars, less flights, less production

by shafyy 3y ago

You know what would be less drastic? Fucking stop emitting as much carbon. Solutions are there: Less livestock farming, less cars, less flights, less production of unnecessary products. Now, can we convince enough people to change their behavior just by telling them to do it? No, of course not. But what works really well is controlling people's behavior via consumer prices. This means, make animal products more expensive, make gas more expensive, make cities pedestrian and bike-friendly so people can get around without cars, make fast fashion more expensive. But of course nobody wants this, because the politicans and people voting for them are also fucking babies that start whining if they can't fucking fly across the world just for fun twice a year. God forbid they need to eat one meal without a fucking dead animal in it. Excuse my language, but FUCK trying to find "maybe" futuristical technological solution to problems we know we can solve right now, right today. But of course, VCs and other motherfuckers can't make money this way.They can make money if they invest in a direct air capture startups that will never work, but then get the fuck out of there and cash out. They are out there building underground bunkers while they have you believe that technology will solve our problems. IT WILL NOT.

AlgorithmicTime 3y ago
[dead]
sigzero 3y ago
I do so love my dead animals for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
ericmay 3y ago
The car one is the most frustrating for me just because global warming is but one of the many problems associated with car-only infrastructure in countries such as the United States. Your point about bunkers is kind of interesting. If society collapses the bunkers are really pointless. I think deep down the “rich people” building them know that. It’s just the same kind of silly doomsday prepping that regular folks do. 50 guns? Patagonia provisions? Plastic tubs of rice? All the same phenomenon. What I find so bewildering is that since the early 1900s the “rich people” seem to have lost their minds a bit more or perhaps just hate themselves and society. We went from a notable history of great public works to satisfy the ego, libraries to the glory of mankind, beautiful commissioned artwork and sculptures, and more to… well… “my name on a hospital/university”, effective altruism, bigger yachts and doomsday bunkers, and sprawling McMansions filled with boring bowling lanes for boring people. Of course this is a generalization and, I think a lot of good work is going in to funding research projects and things like space exploration (making fun of wealthy people trying to launch rockets is way too nihilistic for my taste). But on the whole it really seems like our civilization hates itself and the actions of the wealthy seem to reflect that quite clearly.
- wongarsu 3y ago
  To be fair to space exploration, Elon has by far the best bunker plan. He knows there are a couple decades left until shit really hits the fan. As you say bunkers on earth aren't all that promising, but what if you could make a self-sustaining colony on another planet, far away from societal collapse.
  - Pepe1vo 3y ago
    You know what's even less promising than a bunker on Earth? A bunker literally anywhere else in the observable universe. In fact, we could nuke the entire surface of the earth and it would probably still be easier to establish a self-sustaining colony on the resulting radioactive wasteland then on the Moon/Mars/Venus. There is a very good reason why Earth is, and will continue to, sustain a great diversity of life and the rest of space is sterile.
    - wongarsu 3y ago
      Building a nice place on Earth to ride out climate change would be a lot simpler. But it also puts a massive target on your back. If society collapses, everyone will want in on your little Garden Eden, and no amount of fortification will be able to keep millions of people out. Nuking the entire surface of the Earth would solve that issue, but is generally frowned upon. Better to just build your bunker far, far away where most people can't get to it.
      - jowea 3y ago
        You see self-sustaining colonies outside of Earth in our lifetime? Wouldn't they need a massive industrial base, a variety of resources, large populations, etc to not need Earth?
        wongarsu 3y ago
        Aren't you exactly describing Elon's proclaimed plans for a mars colony? Not a tiny lab like NASA would build, but an industrial base with thousands of inhabitants. Is his plan realistic? Hard to tell. It's far beyond anything we have ever done, and financing such a plan is going to be challenging to say the least. And technologically we are also decades out. So I guess he better hurry up. But that's a different goal post that the one I set, a plan doesn't have to be easy or have probable success in order to be better than the other bunker plans.
bglazer 3y ago
Sure, let’s lower everyone’s standards of living - except for the richest people who won’t change their behavior at all. That’s so politically toxic that its effectively a fantasy. That’s the problem with these tax and prices based economic nudges. They’re effectively punishments, and everyone fucking hates unjust punishments. Think about the person who has to fly to visit a sick family member. Now they’re still flying the same amount, but they’re just a lot poorer. Well that’s an edge case! Of course, it’s also going to be the lead story on conservative media for a news cycle, followed by another and another and another story just like it.
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  What's funny is that any time I've suggested increasing taxes on the rich, I hear how I'm jealous and really I should be thankful for the incredible standard of living that I have as a modern human (as I struggle to maintain employment, housing, and health insurance while nursing some health issues). And yet any time I see suggestions of collective sacrifice to literally save the world, I'm told it's impossible because people are too jealous of how rich people will bend the rules for themselves (as though they don't already live beyond any kind of rules in our current arrangement anyway). It really seems like heads the planet is fucked, tails the planet is fucked. And for some reason it's a mystery why people have stopped having children.
- shafyy 3y ago
  Eating meat, flying a lot and driving a car does not equal a high standard of living. I'm not doing any of these things, but I would say that I have a very high standard of living - probably even higher than people who are stuck in a car in traffic for 2 hours a day and eat cheap meat until they get a heart attack.
thelastgallon 3y ago
Also, stop fossil fuel subsidies. Fossil fuels have many externalities in addition to climate change. Air pollution kills 10 million/year. Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Reached $7 Trillion in 2022, an All-Time High: https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuel-subsidies-2022 https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuel-subsidies-2022 https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-10-16/climate-change-why-are-governments-still-subsidizing-fossil-fuels https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-10-16/climat... Air Pollution Kills 10 Million People a Year. Why Do We Accept That as Normal? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/opinion/environment/air-pollution-deaths-climate-change.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/opinion/environment/air-p...
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
People won't. They just won't. Now what are you going to do? If your plan won't work with the humans we have, do you have a realistic plan to change the humans? No, you don't. So your plan won't work. It will not work. So, are you going to stand on your soapbox blazing out your righteous indignation at the folly of humanity, or are you going to try to figure out something that will work with the humans that we have?
- stubish 3y ago
  Revolutions have traditionally been how we achieve major societal change, and standing on soapboxes yelling is one way to help that along. How else do you engage the humans that we have? Hope that they silently come up with the same plan you have? No, like any politician you yell at them from a soapbox to get enough support for you to act.
boxed 3y ago
Stopping all CO2 emissions tomorrow magically won't bring back the 1+ degrees of warming we already caused though. But yea, I agree, we really really need to cut CO2 emissions. BADLY. Even if we can compensate for the warming we still need to fix the ocean acidification.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
edanm 3y ago
You want to solve the problem of "slowing warming", period. Most people want to solve the problem of "slowing warming without harm to standards of living, as defined by them". So you think people who babies and stupid, etc. They're not - they just care about something you don't. They might be wrong to care about it, but they do.

by shafyy 3y ago

AlgorithmicTime 3y ago

[dead]

sigzero 3y ago

I do so love my dead animals for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

ericmay 3y ago

The car one is the most frustrating for me just because global warming is but one of the many problems associated with car-only infrastructure in countries such as the United States. Your point about bunkers is kind of interesting. If society collapses the bunkers are really pointless. I think deep down the “rich people” building them know that. It’s just the same kind of silly doomsday prepping that regular folks do. 50 guns? Patagonia provisions? Plastic tubs of rice? All the same phenomenon. What I find so bewildering is that since the early 1900s the “rich people” seem to have lost their minds a bit more or perhaps just hate themselves and society. We went from a notable history of great public works to satisfy the ego, libraries to the glory of mankind, beautiful commissioned artwork and sculptures, and more to… well… “my name on a hospital/university”, effective altruism, bigger yachts and doomsday bunkers, and sprawling McMansions filled with boring bowling lanes for boring people. Of course this is a generalization and, I think a lot of good work is going in to funding research projects and things like space exploration (making fun of wealthy people trying to launch rockets is way too nihilistic for my taste). But on the whole it really seems like our civilization hates itself and the actions of the wealthy seem to reflect that quite clearly.

wongarsu 3y ago
To be fair to space exploration, Elon has by far the best bunker plan. He knows there are a couple decades left until shit really hits the fan. As you say bunkers on earth aren't all that promising, but what if you could make a self-sustaining colony on another planet, far away from societal collapse.
- Pepe1vo 3y ago
  You know what's even less promising than a bunker on Earth? A bunker literally anywhere else in the observable universe. In fact, we could nuke the entire surface of the earth and it would probably still be easier to establish a self-sustaining colony on the resulting radioactive wasteland then on the Moon/Mars/Venus. There is a very good reason why Earth is, and will continue to, sustain a great diversity of life and the rest of space is sterile.
  - wongarsu 3y ago
    Building a nice place on Earth to ride out climate change would be a lot simpler. But it also puts a massive target on your back. If society collapses, everyone will want in on your little Garden Eden, and no amount of fortification will be able to keep millions of people out. Nuking the entire surface of the Earth would solve that issue, but is generally frowned upon. Better to just build your bunker far, far away where most people can't get to it.
    - jowea 3y ago
      You see self-sustaining colonies outside of Earth in our lifetime? Wouldn't they need a massive industrial base, a variety of resources, large populations, etc to not need Earth?
      - wongarsu 3y ago
        Aren't you exactly describing Elon's proclaimed plans for a mars colony? Not a tiny lab like NASA would build, but an industrial base with thousands of inhabitants. Is his plan realistic? Hard to tell. It's far beyond anything we have ever done, and financing such a plan is going to be challenging to say the least. And technologically we are also decades out. So I guess he better hurry up. But that's a different goal post that the one I set, a plan doesn't have to be easy or have probable success in order to be better than the other bunker plans.

bglazer 3y ago

Sure, let’s lower everyone’s standards of living - except for the richest people who won’t change their behavior at all. That’s so politically toxic that its effectively a fantasy. That’s the problem with these tax and prices based economic nudges. They’re effectively punishments, and everyone fucking hates unjust punishments. Think about the person who has to fly to visit a sick family member. Now they’re still flying the same amount, but they’re just a lot poorer. Well that’s an edge case! Of course, it’s also going to be the lead story on conservative media for a news cycle, followed by another and another and another story just like it.

hotpotamus 3y ago
What's funny is that any time I've suggested increasing taxes on the rich, I hear how I'm jealous and really I should be thankful for the incredible standard of living that I have as a modern human (as I struggle to maintain employment, housing, and health insurance while nursing some health issues). And yet any time I see suggestions of collective sacrifice to literally save the world, I'm told it's impossible because people are too jealous of how rich people will bend the rules for themselves (as though they don't already live beyond any kind of rules in our current arrangement anyway). It really seems like heads the planet is fucked, tails the planet is fucked. And for some reason it's a mystery why people have stopped having children.
shafyy 3y ago
Eating meat, flying a lot and driving a car does not equal a high standard of living. I'm not doing any of these things, but I would say that I have a very high standard of living - probably even higher than people who are stuck in a car in traffic for 2 hours a day and eat cheap meat until they get a heart attack.

thelastgallon 3y ago

Also, stop fossil fuel subsidies. Fossil fuels have many externalities in addition to climate change. Air pollution kills 10 million/year. Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Reached $7 Trillion in 2022, an All-Time High: https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuel-subsidies-2022 https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuel-subsidies-2022 https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-10-16/climate-change-why-are-governments-still-subsidizing-fossil-fuels https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-10-16/climat... Air Pollution Kills 10 Million People a Year. Why Do We Accept That as Normal? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/opinion/environment/air-pollution-deaths-climate-change.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/opinion/environment/air-p...

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

People won't. They just won't. Now what are you going to do? If your plan won't work with the humans we have, do you have a realistic plan to change the humans? No, you don't. So your plan won't work. It will not work. So, are you going to stand on your soapbox blazing out your righteous indignation at the folly of humanity, or are you going to try to figure out something that will work with the humans that we have?

stubish 3y ago
Revolutions have traditionally been how we achieve major societal change, and standing on soapboxes yelling is one way to help that along. How else do you engage the humans that we have? Hope that they silently come up with the same plan you have? No, like any politician you yell at them from a soapbox to get enough support for you to act.

boxed 3y ago

Stopping all CO2 emissions tomorrow magically won't bring back the 1+ degrees of warming we already caused though. But yea, I agree, we really really need to cut CO2 emissions. BADLY. Even if we can compensate for the warming we still need to fix the ocean acidification.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

edanm 3y ago

You want to solve the problem of "slowing warming", period. Most people want to solve the problem of "slowing warming without harm to standards of living, as defined by them". So you think people who babies and stupid, etc. They're not - they just care about something you don't. They might be wrong to care about it, but they do.