5 ms·

I love the natural world, and think what we've done to it is terrible, but the climate change "movement" and messaging is so bad and misguided that it is counte

by xnx 1y ago

I love the natural world, and think what we've done to it is terrible, but the climate change "movement" and messaging is so bad and misguided that it is counterproductive. The world will not become unlivable on a timescale that any living person cares about (as revealed by expressed preference). People live in Phoenix in the summer by choice!

goopypoop 1y ago
I'm more worried about the roof getting blown off my flooded house
alganet 1y ago
The world economy is a delicate machine. One or two degrees will not incinerate you, but it might affect some crops, and then some food prices, and then there could be some starving, and poverty, and disease. Things could escalate quickly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse
vdupras 1y ago
We've got to define "unlivable". What if statistically, everyone's house will be destroyed by flooding, forest fires, etc.. let's say, twice in their lifetime. How can the math possibly add up if a house's price requires a 50 years mortgage? At some point, something's gotta give and that kind of odds will happen in a timescale shorter than many living people care about. Also, wasn't there something about, you know, caring for the generations to come? Maybe I misremember...
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  The US is currently spending ~$1T/year on climate costs. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-17/us-spending-on-climate-damage-nears-1-trillion-per-year https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-17/us-spendi... | https://archive.today/EBmaI https://archive.today/EBmaI https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/09/climate-crisis-cost-extreme-weather-damage-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/09/climate-...
- 123yawaworht456 1y ago
  with the current TFR rapidly approaching 1.5 children per woman virtually everywhere in the northern hemisphere, even if it remains stable (it will not, it will continue to decline), its population will shrink to 1/10th of what it is today in less than 250 years. there will be plenty of empty houses for the generations to come.
  - vdupras 1y ago
    A reverse Malthusian extrapolation, now that's something I haven't seen since Children of Men.
    - toomuchtodo 1y ago
      https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Slides_London.pdf https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Slides_London.pdf
    - antisthenes 1y ago
      No, it's not the reverse extrapolation. It's still part of Malthusian theory, it's just the logical conclusion of population collapse after resource depletion.
joules77 1y ago
Its the Attention economy layer underneath effecting everything. Whether its Trump or Climate Change - elevating threat perception captures attention. And algos are programmed to prop it up. There are no bright answers or theories on what to do about it.
- yupitsme123 1y ago
  Something that's interesting to me is how climate change has largely fallen off the media radar over the past few years. Back around 2007 it was a HUGE topic and many of us thought we'd be living in hell by 2025. Yet here we are and climate change rarely even makes the news.
  - vdupras 1y ago
    The media never said 2025. They always, always talked about 2100, just so the mind can safely think "I'll be dead by then". Thresholds crossed by 2025? certainly. But "living hell by 2025"? I'll have to call "citations needed".
    - yupitsme123 1y ago
      I didn't say that the media said that. It was the general feeling that many people (myself included) had and that activists perpetuated at that time. Disaster was about 15-20 years away. What I said about the media is that they talked about climate change a whole lot more back then compared to now. Beside the Iraq War it was one of the big topics that everyone was always talking about. Nowadays it seems more of a background issue.
      - Yossarrian22 1y ago
        I'm over 40 can you cite a primary source from that time frame? That is very much not how I recall people thinking about climate change.
        yupitsme123 1y ago
Paradigma11 1y ago
Sure nature and us will adapt. Just think of the 10 year lynx-hare cycle https://jckantor.github.io/CBE30338/02.05-Hare-and-Lynx-Population-Dynamics.html https://jckantor.github.io/CBE30338/02.05-Hare-and-Lynx-Popu... where nature adapts constantly. Now think about the fact that Lynxes have a max age of 15 years plus and the cycle takes 10 years.
jhanschoo 1y ago
> the climate change "movement" and messaging is so bad and misguided that it is counterproductive I really don't think that the climate change messaging is bad and misguided. At the end of the day, it's because climate change advocacy is underfunded and there is a lot of money in oil. If climate change messaging was nicer, it's hard for me to see how anyone would care more anyway. On the other hand, if climate change advocates had real money behind it on the order of big oil PR and regulatory capture, you would see change and legislation really quick.
mariusor 1y ago
I think you are wrong. There are large swaths of the world that are unlivable today without significant cooling. When summers with over 45 Celsius (fifties in some parts) are becoming more and more common poor people without access to air-conditioning are suffering. These areas are becoming larger and larger. Just because us in the western temperate climates are fine, does not mean that the effects of climate change will not be felt somewhere in the world today or in the next decade.
onewheeltom 1y ago
I know you are wrong. Farmers in South America have been driven from their land because it has become too hot. If all you care about is North America, you are also a putz.
queenkjuul 1y ago
Climate disasters are getting worse every year. I think you're completely misguided--things are going to get very bad in our lifetimes, and anyone saying otherwise is profiting off that misdirection.

by xnx 1y ago

goopypoop 1y ago

I'm more worried about the roof getting blown off my flooded house

alganet 1y ago

The world economy is a delicate machine. One or two degrees will not incinerate you, but it might affect some crops, and then some food prices, and then there could be some starving, and poverty, and disease. Things could escalate quickly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse

vdupras 1y ago

We've got to define "unlivable". What if statistically, everyone's house will be destroyed by flooding, forest fires, etc.. let's say, twice in their lifetime. How can the math possibly add up if a house's price requires a 50 years mortgage? At some point, something's gotta give and that kind of odds will happen in a timescale shorter than many living people care about. Also, wasn't there something about, you know, caring for the generations to come? Maybe I misremember...

toomuchtodo 1y ago
The US is currently spending ~$1T/year on climate costs. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-17/us-spending-on-climate-damage-nears-1-trillion-per-year https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-17/us-spendi... | https://archive.today/EBmaI https://archive.today/EBmaI https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/09/climate-crisis-cost-extreme-weather-damage-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/09/climate-...
123yawaworht456 1y ago
with the current TFR rapidly approaching 1.5 children per woman virtually everywhere in the northern hemisphere, even if it remains stable (it will not, it will continue to decline), its population will shrink to 1/10th of what it is today in less than 250 years. there will be plenty of empty houses for the generations to come.
- vdupras 1y ago
  A reverse Malthusian extrapolation, now that's something I haven't seen since Children of Men.
  - toomuchtodo 1y ago
    https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Slides_London.pdf https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Slides_London.pdf
  - antisthenes 1y ago
    No, it's not the reverse extrapolation. It's still part of Malthusian theory, it's just the logical conclusion of population collapse after resource depletion.

joules77 1y ago

Its the Attention economy layer underneath effecting everything. Whether its Trump or Climate Change - elevating threat perception captures attention. And algos are programmed to prop it up. There are no bright answers or theories on what to do about it.

yupitsme123 1y ago
Something that's interesting to me is how climate change has largely fallen off the media radar over the past few years. Back around 2007 it was a HUGE topic and many of us thought we'd be living in hell by 2025. Yet here we are and climate change rarely even makes the news.
- vdupras 1y ago
  The media never said 2025. They always, always talked about 2100, just so the mind can safely think "I'll be dead by then". Thresholds crossed by 2025? certainly. But "living hell by 2025"? I'll have to call "citations needed".
  - yupitsme123 1y ago
    I didn't say that the media said that. It was the general feeling that many people (myself included) had and that activists perpetuated at that time. Disaster was about 15-20 years away. What I said about the media is that they talked about climate change a whole lot more back then compared to now. Beside the Iraq War it was one of the big topics that everyone was always talking about. Nowadays it seems more of a background issue.
    - Yossarrian22 1y ago
      I'm over 40 can you cite a primary source from that time frame? That is very much not how I recall people thinking about climate change.
      - yupitsme123 1y ago

Paradigma11 1y ago

Sure nature and us will adapt. Just think of the 10 year lynx-hare cycle https://jckantor.github.io/CBE30338/02.05-Hare-and-Lynx-Population-Dynamics.html https://jckantor.github.io/CBE30338/02.05-Hare-and-Lynx-Popu... where nature adapts constantly. Now think about the fact that Lynxes have a max age of 15 years plus and the cycle takes 10 years.

jhanschoo 1y ago

> the climate change "movement" and messaging is so bad and misguided that it is counterproductive I really don't think that the climate change messaging is bad and misguided. At the end of the day, it's because climate change advocacy is underfunded and there is a lot of money in oil. If climate change messaging was nicer, it's hard for me to see how anyone would care more anyway. On the other hand, if climate change advocates had real money behind it on the order of big oil PR and regulatory capture, you would see change and legislation really quick.

mariusor 1y ago

I think you are wrong. There are large swaths of the world that are unlivable today without significant cooling. When summers with over 45 Celsius (fifties in some parts) are becoming more and more common poor people without access to air-conditioning are suffering. These areas are becoming larger and larger. Just because us in the western temperate climates are fine, does not mean that the effects of climate change will not be felt somewhere in the world today or in the next decade.

onewheeltom 1y ago

I know you are wrong. Farmers in South America have been driven from their land because it has become too hot. If all you care about is North America, you are also a putz.

queenkjuul 1y ago

Climate disasters are getting worse every year. I think you're completely misguided--things are going to get very bad in our lifetimes, and anyone saying otherwise is profiting off that misdirection.