5 ms·

I don't see any point in even trying to change any more. There is too much damage already, international cooperation has always been primarily driven by nationa

I don't see any point in even trying to change any more. There is too much damage already, international cooperation has always been primarily driven by national interests, and I don't see there ever being a global movement significant enough to make a difference. What I don't get is why people are still having children in societies where it is not necessary to have offspring to provide you with income and care in your later years. Anyone approaching middle age can still look forward to a relatively comfortable life, but it's the babies being born today that are truly screwed.

silverquiet 2y ago
I think about this more than I probably should, but people have always had hope for the future in spite of certain (personal) doom. In some sense it's just the human condition. I do wonder how people will behave if/when more and more come to the same conclusion.
hackerlight 2y ago
Climate change isn't binary. If we limit it to 2-3C that's a lot less suffering, war and devastation than 4-5C. And I think we have a shot at achieving that thanks to the miracle of economies of scale driven cost declines we are seeing with renewables and batteries.
gadders 2y ago
People are a resource. You could have the next Einstein or Norman Borlaug.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  It's entirely possible that there is an Einstein or two working in climate science and telling us to cut down on CO2 emissions.
  - gadders 2y ago
    There could be a Tesla or Edison waiting to be born that could solve the problem.
    - piva00 2y ago
      There could be as much as there couldn't be one. Betting on a black swan event like a yet unborn baby that will become the Tesla/Edison/Newton/Einstein/Mozart of climate engineering to solve an issue that will destroy the fabric of modern society while taking a lot of Earth's life in the process is just stupid. Wishful thinking won't take us anywhere, we need to work with the reality we have right now not with extraordinary potential saviours might provide if they ever exist...
      - silverquiet 2y ago
        I feel like that would actually be a white swan event. But yes, to me it essentially sounds like an alcoholic with a failing liver saying they can keep drinking because someone is going to invent a cure for cirrhosis any day now.
      - gadders 2y ago
        You should have children because having children is the most amazing thing a person can do. I was just making the point that people aren't necessarily a net detriment. If people honestly believed that you'd see mass suicides as well.
    - Integrape 2y ago
      There isn't going to be a "Climate Engineering Messiah". We know what we have to do already, and it will take everyone cooperating to make it happen.
      - gadders 2y ago
        There are no technological solutions? Cold fusion? Electric cars with no drawbacks? Near perfect efficiency solar power? Tidal/wave power?
  - Ferret7446 2y ago
    No. An Einstein would be giving us the technology to do so practically. Telling us to cut down on CO2 emissions is, quite frankly, useless. We don't exactly have a shortage of pundits in 2024.
- birksherty 2y ago
  Worst resource that caused and will cause this biggest issue. Realistically they will most probably be a corporate slave and never be an Einstein.
CorrectHorseBat 2y ago
Despite everything going on we're in a better place than we've ever been. Our children will likely be in an even better place.
- EnigmaFlare 2y ago
  Yes. People seem to have forgotten what a catastrophe the 20th century was. WWI, WWII, Spanish flu, famine in China, famine in USSR, Pol Pot. I've never seen predictions that climate change will be as bad as all that, yet people still kept having kids despite all those risks that actually eventuated and humanity overall flourished.
  - piva00 2y ago
    None of those are close to the potential destructive power that a truly global catastrophe like climate change is. Pol Pot? Soviets? WW1 and WW2? Famines in China? You are comparing political events against the laws of thermodynamics in a global scale. Even the Spanish flu has an understandable/predictable time period for the tipping point where it will be stopped due to how viruses and adaptations to it occur. I don't think you comprehend the level and degree of difference between all of those events against the effects where laws of physics dictating how a planetary-level of change in energy retained will mess up with every single thing we as humanity need to survive on this Earth.
    - EnigmaFlare 2y ago
      You haven't quantified that comparison so you really don't have a clue. Just saying physics is more powerful than politics doesn't mean the outcome will be worse.
      - piva00 2y ago
        Do I really need to get you figures for how many gigajoules are required to heat up the whole world by 3-4C on average, studies on the effects of that energy added to the atmosphere and oceans, and the second and third order effects on the biosphere or are you smart enough to figure that one out? I assume folks on HN are smart enough to understand the basic premise of what I said, if needed I can track the data for you but you could probably do the same instead of a stupid rebuttal dressed as snarkiness.
EnigmaFlare 2y ago
That care will be provided by other people's children. The people who invested in raising those children will miss out if they're not rich enough to pay yet other people again's children to look after them. This goes beyond aged care and applies to generally running the whole economy. Even before retirement, the older you get, the more you depend on younger people to support your life. What happens if/when all countries are close to western levels of wealth? There'll no longer be a readily available underclass to support the less capable old-people in rich countries and they'll effectively be poor again. In New Zealand, we already rely heavily on immigrants for aged care, health care and various trades. What evidence do you have that babies born today are screwed by climate change? If they live 80 years, they will see the end of most predictions (2100), which aren't actually a disaster for people in rich countries. It might be a problem in Bangladesh but not America.
bryanlarsen 2y ago
It seems likely that 2023 is going to be the highest CO2 emissions ever. If not 2023, 2024 definitely will be. We're pretty much at the point where CO2 emissions are dropping. We have a long way to go, but don't lose hope, we are making progress.
fileeditview 2y ago
This sentiment was was represented in probably any generation ever.. fact is we don't have any clue what will be in 50 years.. be it a positive or negative development.

silverquiet 2y ago

I think about this more than I probably should, but people have always had hope for the future in spite of certain (personal) doom. In some sense it's just the human condition. I do wonder how people will behave if/when more and more come to the same conclusion.

hackerlight 2y ago

Climate change isn't binary. If we limit it to 2-3C that's a lot less suffering, war and devastation than 4-5C. And I think we have a shot at achieving that thanks to the miracle of economies of scale driven cost declines we are seeing with renewables and batteries.

gadders 2y ago

People are a resource. You could have the next Einstein or Norman Borlaug.

silverquiet 2y ago
It's entirely possible that there is an Einstein or two working in climate science and telling us to cut down on CO2 emissions.
- gadders 2y ago
  There could be a Tesla or Edison waiting to be born that could solve the problem.
  - piva00 2y ago
    There could be as much as there couldn't be one. Betting on a black swan event like a yet unborn baby that will become the Tesla/Edison/Newton/Einstein/Mozart of climate engineering to solve an issue that will destroy the fabric of modern society while taking a lot of Earth's life in the process is just stupid. Wishful thinking won't take us anywhere, we need to work with the reality we have right now not with extraordinary potential saviours might provide if they ever exist...
    - silverquiet 2y ago
      I feel like that would actually be a white swan event. But yes, to me it essentially sounds like an alcoholic with a failing liver saying they can keep drinking because someone is going to invent a cure for cirrhosis any day now.
    - gadders 2y ago
      You should have children because having children is the most amazing thing a person can do. I was just making the point that people aren't necessarily a net detriment. If people honestly believed that you'd see mass suicides as well.
  - Integrape 2y ago
    There isn't going to be a "Climate Engineering Messiah". We know what we have to do already, and it will take everyone cooperating to make it happen.
    - gadders 2y ago
      There are no technological solutions? Cold fusion? Electric cars with no drawbacks? Near perfect efficiency solar power? Tidal/wave power?
- Ferret7446 2y ago
  No. An Einstein would be giving us the technology to do so practically. Telling us to cut down on CO2 emissions is, quite frankly, useless. We don't exactly have a shortage of pundits in 2024.
birksherty 2y ago
Worst resource that caused and will cause this biggest issue. Realistically they will most probably be a corporate slave and never be an Einstein.

CorrectHorseBat 2y ago

Despite everything going on we're in a better place than we've ever been. Our children will likely be in an even better place.

EnigmaFlare 2y ago
Yes. People seem to have forgotten what a catastrophe the 20th century was. WWI, WWII, Spanish flu, famine in China, famine in USSR, Pol Pot. I've never seen predictions that climate change will be as bad as all that, yet people still kept having kids despite all those risks that actually eventuated and humanity overall flourished.
- piva00 2y ago
  None of those are close to the potential destructive power that a truly global catastrophe like climate change is. Pol Pot? Soviets? WW1 and WW2? Famines in China? You are comparing political events against the laws of thermodynamics in a global scale. Even the Spanish flu has an understandable/predictable time period for the tipping point where it will be stopped due to how viruses and adaptations to it occur. I don't think you comprehend the level and degree of difference between all of those events against the effects where laws of physics dictating how a planetary-level of change in energy retained will mess up with every single thing we as humanity need to survive on this Earth.
  - EnigmaFlare 2y ago
    You haven't quantified that comparison so you really don't have a clue. Just saying physics is more powerful than politics doesn't mean the outcome will be worse.
    - piva00 2y ago
      Do I really need to get you figures for how many gigajoules are required to heat up the whole world by 3-4C on average, studies on the effects of that energy added to the atmosphere and oceans, and the second and third order effects on the biosphere or are you smart enough to figure that one out? I assume folks on HN are smart enough to understand the basic premise of what I said, if needed I can track the data for you but you could probably do the same instead of a stupid rebuttal dressed as snarkiness.

EnigmaFlare 2y ago

That care will be provided by other people's children. The people who invested in raising those children will miss out if they're not rich enough to pay yet other people again's children to look after them. This goes beyond aged care and applies to generally running the whole economy. Even before retirement, the older you get, the more you depend on younger people to support your life. What happens if/when all countries are close to western levels of wealth? There'll no longer be a readily available underclass to support the less capable old-people in rich countries and they'll effectively be poor again. In New Zealand, we already rely heavily on immigrants for aged care, health care and various trades. What evidence do you have that babies born today are screwed by climate change? If they live 80 years, they will see the end of most predictions (2100), which aren't actually a disaster for people in rich countries. It might be a problem in Bangladesh but not America.

bryanlarsen 2y ago

It seems likely that 2023 is going to be the highest CO2 emissions ever. If not 2023, 2024 definitely will be. We're pretty much at the point where CO2 emissions are dropping. We have a long way to go, but don't lose hope, we are making progress.

fileeditview 2y ago

This sentiment was was represented in probably any generation ever.. fact is we don't have any clue what will be in 50 years.. be it a positive or negative development.