3 ms·

You’re asking for it to happen sooner because you don’t like your job. You’re not the only inhabitant of this planet, and it would be much better for the rest

You’re asking for it to happen sooner because you don’t like your job. You’re not the only inhabitant of this planet, and it would be much better for the rest of us (and you!) if you found a job or career you can better tolerate. You’ll be happier and there won’t be any rush anymore.

giantg2 2y ago
Why would it be better for the rest of the world to delay it? It's possible it would be better to happen now before the world population is expected to peak so it affects fewer people. You might not want it to happen right now, but maybe you're just wishing it onto more people because you don't want to deal with it?
- ornornor 2y ago
  Because then there is still hope the species will rally to mitigate it, and we all get to enjoy years (decades?) of a life we don’t all hate. I’d be gutted to die tomorrow. You might not share that sentiment but that doesn’t give you the right to decide for everyone else.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    Just because it happens tomorrow doesn't mean we die tomorrow. It doesn't seem there's any mitigation strategy here. Even if we stop increasing warming, the current level of warming could still trigger it.
    - ornornor 2y ago
      Still. I personally would rather have more time and a chance for the species to band together and mitigate than ending it all already. I think we can both agree a climate apocalypse won’t be a good time for anyone whenever it starts, and the more it warms up the worse the outcome.
      - giantg2 2y ago
        Again, there is no feasible mitigation for this specific issue at this point, and it's not like life will end. Yes, major changes will happen. Yes, reducing temperature would be good and higher temperatures are worse. But perhaps preventing this specific event is worse ad it can act to re-establish norther sea ice and begin balancing the climate again. Sure, on the timescale of your life it's bad, but on the timescale of the species/planet it may actually be good.

giantg2 2y ago

Why would it be better for the rest of the world to delay it? It's possible it would be better to happen now before the world population is expected to peak so it affects fewer people. You might not want it to happen right now, but maybe you're just wishing it onto more people because you don't want to deal with it?

ornornor 2y ago
Because then there is still hope the species will rally to mitigate it, and we all get to enjoy years (decades?) of a life we don’t all hate. I’d be gutted to die tomorrow. You might not share that sentiment but that doesn’t give you the right to decide for everyone else.
- giantg2 2y ago
  Just because it happens tomorrow doesn't mean we die tomorrow. It doesn't seem there's any mitigation strategy here. Even if we stop increasing warming, the current level of warming could still trigger it.
  - ornornor 2y ago
    Still. I personally would rather have more time and a chance for the species to band together and mitigate than ending it all already. I think we can both agree a climate apocalypse won’t be a good time for anyone whenever it starts, and the more it warms up the worse the outcome.
    - giantg2 2y ago
      Again, there is no feasible mitigation for this specific issue at this point, and it's not like life will end. Yes, major changes will happen. Yes, reducing temperature would be good and higher temperatures are worse. But perhaps preventing this specific event is worse ad it can act to re-establish norther sea ice and begin balancing the climate again. Sure, on the timescale of your life it's bad, but on the timescale of the species/planet it may actually be good.