4 ms·

> previous generations are leaving them a burning hellscape full of toxic forever chemicals and microplastics that the kids will need to clean up Please, folks

by timr 2y ago

> previous generations are leaving them a burning hellscape full of toxic forever chemicals and microplastics that the kids will need to clean up Please, folks, take a step back and realize that most of what you've read about this stuff in the pop media is based on extremely speculative data, usually from weak, observational studies, or small laboratory experiments in non-human animals. The threat to your life, individually, has been greatly exaggerated. You are far more likely to die of eating too much and getting too fat than whatever microplastics are supposedly doing to you. I'm not saying that there aren't issues here, but as someone else on this thread already noted, we're living longer than ever before. To the extent that human lifespans have declined, it's largely due to the fact that we're succumbing to diseases of lifestyle that are entirely within our control as individuals. Worry about that, not theoretical future concerns about chemicals.

sigmoid10 2y ago
On microplastics I agree, but on climate change the issue is almost reversed. We have tons of high profile research coming out all the time that even our worst case models were too optimistic and we are bound for a shitshow of unimaginable proportions. This shouldn't come as a surprise for people who know how the IPCC reports are created (sort of a least common denominator between science, politics and lobbyists). So every time they say official "worst case" model, that is the worst case that the fossil industry is willing to admit. And that is already pretty bad. What we're actually going to experience could very well amount to a civilisation-ending event. Especially if oceans keep acidifying, which is a highly overlooked doomsday gun and could not just end modern civilisation, but actually kill us and most other land based oxygen breathing creatures. We even know this has happened once already, most likely from a combination of impact events and volcanism. But today's CO2 emission rate is an order of magnitude greater than it was back then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extin...
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  The worst case used to be 6.5 degrees. The worst case has been revised down to ~4 degrees.
  - silverquiet 2y ago
    The ocean temperature data from the last year is suggesting that there are significant problems in the climate models and not in a happy direction. I try not to dwell on this subject, but I’m increasingly glad that I never wanted children.
    - bryanlarsen 2y ago
      You're missing the forest for the trees. The primary factor influencing warming is CO2 emissions. The rate of emissions is expected to peak in 2024. That's much better than earlier worst case models that were based on continually increasing emissions. So yes, the models miscalculated some secondary factors. But the primary factor is still primary.
      - silverquiet 2y ago
        Why are emissions expected to peak in 2024? Are people going to fly or drive less miles? Are we going to live in smaller, more energy efficient houses? Are we going to consume less compute resources? I’m sure we will deploy more renewables; we have certainly seen impressive performance there, but it has supplemented rather than replaced carbon-based sources so far. I believe there are also a lot of new starts for natural gas power plants in the US to support power intensive AI needs. And coal use world wide is still quite high. I do agree that it would be encouraging to see a decrease in emissions (though I suspect we may have already passed some points of no return), but we have not yet seen the peak and I do not understand why one would believe that next year will be better than this year. A solution will require actual collective action that has proven infeasible for my entire life.
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
        Biggest impact is wind power replacing carbon sources. A close second is solar power. EV's are a distant but non negligible third. https://climateanalytics.org/comment/will-2024-be-the-year-emissions-start-falling https://climateanalytics.org/comment/will-2024-be-the-year-e...
- corinn3 2y ago
  [dead]
Funes- 2y ago
>You are far more likely to die of eating too much and getting too fat than whatever microplastics are supposedly doing to you. Funny how you can imply that we are still in the dark about how microplastics and other toxins or chemicals (in our food or water supply, for instance) actually affect our health, and, at the same time, assert with such confidence that something else is more likely to kill you. You don't know how A is really affecting you, yet you're saying that surely B is affecting you to a greater degree than A? Are you incapable of seeing the incoherence and bias here? >it's largely due to the fact that we're succumbing to diseases of lifestyle that are entirely within our control as individuals. Yet another unfounded assertion to protect your dismissive standpoint. Man, I'm glad you decided against becoming a scientist, phew. >folks, take a step back and realize... >Worry about that, not... No. The issues the user you replied to are legitimately concerning and I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss his worries, which many people share, especially through such an unscientific and biased way of thinking.
- ryanwaggoner 2y ago
  There is simply zero evidence that microplastics are killing people at higher rates than obesity. If they were, it would be very obvious in the data.
- itsdrewmiller 2y ago
  I agree you can worry about two or more things, but the delta in world quality 50 years ago vs. now is not tremendous and not obviously negative; microplastics play a very small part in it either way. If one shouldn’t bring kids into the world now one probably should also believe their own birth was a mistake.

by timr 2y ago

sigmoid10 2y ago

On microplastics I agree, but on climate change the issue is almost reversed. We have tons of high profile research coming out all the time that even our worst case models were too optimistic and we are bound for a shitshow of unimaginable proportions. This shouldn't come as a surprise for people who know how the IPCC reports are created (sort of a least common denominator between science, politics and lobbyists). So every time they say official "worst case" model, that is the worst case that the fossil industry is willing to admit. And that is already pretty bad. What we're actually going to experience could very well amount to a civilisation-ending event. Especially if oceans keep acidifying, which is a highly overlooked doomsday gun and could not just end modern civilisation, but actually kill us and most other land based oxygen breathing creatures. We even know this has happened once already, most likely from a combination of impact events and volcanism. But today's CO2 emission rate is an order of magnitude greater than it was back then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extin...

bryanlarsen 2y ago
The worst case used to be 6.5 degrees. The worst case has been revised down to ~4 degrees.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  The ocean temperature data from the last year is suggesting that there are significant problems in the climate models and not in a happy direction. I try not to dwell on this subject, but I’m increasingly glad that I never wanted children.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    You're missing the forest for the trees. The primary factor influencing warming is CO2 emissions. The rate of emissions is expected to peak in 2024. That's much better than earlier worst case models that were based on continually increasing emissions. So yes, the models miscalculated some secondary factors. But the primary factor is still primary.
    - silverquiet 2y ago
      Why are emissions expected to peak in 2024? Are people going to fly or drive less miles? Are we going to live in smaller, more energy efficient houses? Are we going to consume less compute resources? I’m sure we will deploy more renewables; we have certainly seen impressive performance there, but it has supplemented rather than replaced carbon-based sources so far. I believe there are also a lot of new starts for natural gas power plants in the US to support power intensive AI needs. And coal use world wide is still quite high. I do agree that it would be encouraging to see a decrease in emissions (though I suspect we may have already passed some points of no return), but we have not yet seen the peak and I do not understand why one would believe that next year will be better than this year. A solution will require actual collective action that has proven infeasible for my entire life.
      - bryanlarsen 2y ago
        Biggest impact is wind power replacing carbon sources. A close second is solar power. EV's are a distant but non negligible third. https://climateanalytics.org/comment/will-2024-be-the-year-emissions-start-falling https://climateanalytics.org/comment/will-2024-be-the-year-e...
corinn3 2y ago
[dead]

Funes- 2y ago

>You are far more likely to die of eating too much and getting too fat than whatever microplastics are supposedly doing to you. Funny how you can imply that we are still in the dark about how microplastics and other toxins or chemicals (in our food or water supply, for instance) actually affect our health, and, at the same time, assert with such confidence that something else is more likely to kill you. You don't know how A is really affecting you, yet you're saying that surely B is affecting you to a greater degree than A? Are you incapable of seeing the incoherence and bias here? >it's largely due to the fact that we're succumbing to diseases of lifestyle that are entirely within our control as individuals. Yet another unfounded assertion to protect your dismissive standpoint. Man, I'm glad you decided against becoming a scientist, phew. >folks, take a step back and realize... >Worry about that, not... No. The issues the user you replied to are legitimately concerning and I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss his worries, which many people share, especially through such an unscientific and biased way of thinking.

ryanwaggoner 2y ago
There is simply zero evidence that microplastics are killing people at higher rates than obesity. If they were, it would be very obvious in the data.
itsdrewmiller 2y ago
I agree you can worry about two or more things, but the delta in world quality 50 years ago vs. now is not tremendous and not obviously negative; microplastics play a very small part in it either way. If one shouldn’t bring kids into the world now one probably should also believe their own birth was a mistake.