Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
View
Sort
Coming soon

I've had a new appreciation for dandelions since I've been keeping ducks. They'll eat them happily so when I pull weeds I give them to the ducks after and I get to watch them eat and quack.

see more

Dandelions are highly medicinal. Dandilion leaf works quite well in pesto. Also roasted dandelion root is a fairly good coffee substitute.

1 point · 1 day ago

I love me some nature, but if you look at what we're facing in comparison, I don't give a shit about other species. The realistic (albeit far-fetched) issue is if we can colonize another planet before the earth is uninhabitable.

What I meant is humans adapting economically, similar to what Holland has been doing with sea level water for centuries. But that's not going to happen unfortunately since we can't magically go carbon neutral anyway.

see more

This is the real race now, thank Bezos, Musk and Branson for pushing the envelope and giving us a chance at this.

Science may someday give us ways to bring back the species we have destroyed. Not our priority right now, humans need an HQ2!

see more

You will see a very depressed human race if that's the result. Hell, we already are.

Load more comments

Watched a doco about bees. Apparently they don't like almond pollen that much, but when it's thousands of acres of just one tree they don't have a lotta choice.. It also wasn't uncommon to see them spraying the trees while the bees were working!

At first I didn't understand why a pole had so many upvotes. I see now it's lit up.

We will go full steam ahead and then build something ridiculous to mitigate it.

A 1000km2 space mirror a few mm’s thick at Lagrangian Point L1 could reduce incoming solar radiation by several percent. It’s estimated to cost several trillion, but if we go balls to the wall between now and then, it’s not exactly that unrealistic to spend the money.

I honestly think by 2100 we will largely have complete control of the climate. With super computers able to control the size of the space mirror to perfectly counter 20th and 21st century emissions. We won’t be adding more carbon then so will then enact a controlled strip of the carbon currently in the atmosphere back to safe levels.

Or we’ll all die a fiery death. Who knows.

see more
2 points · 2 days ago

I doubt it tbh. Is it even possible to keep something so large protected from space debris?

But alas, I think we seriously underestimate the consequences of our actions. We do that all the time. I'm no expert, but I'm fairly sure there would be some significant consequences of reducing the amount of solar irradiation reaching Earth. I remember reading how they input such a mirror system into climate models which found that it would cause less rainfall and would cool the Earth unevenly (some places still getting hotter).

And neither does it address ocean acidification which is a major threat to the food chain.

By 2100 we'll probably just be figuring out how to survive/adapt while everything around us begins to die off.

The space shade would need active management and constant repair and addition. The amount of solar radiation reduction would be broadly even across the earth. It's the sulphate in the atmosphere that's thought to cause uneven effects.

Yes ocean acidification would be a problem, which is why CO2 would need to be scrubbed from the atmosphere.

> By 2100 we'll probably just be figuring out how to survive/adapt while everything around us begins to die off.

Of course this is likely, probably the most likely scenario. But then again, humans from every single time in history though their problems were insurmountable. If you read a list of the thousands of proclamations of doom from the 'smartest minds' of the time you realise how terrible we are at predicting the future.

I work in energy and climate change, so acutely aware of just how big the challenge is.

see more

Of course this is likely, probably the most likely scenario. But then again, humans from every single time in history though their problems were insurmountable. If you read a list of the thousands of proclamations of doom from the 'smartest minds' of the time you realise how terrible we are at predicting the future.

True, but human civilisations have collapsed from insurmountable problems plenty of times in the past. We just didn't all die out.

The amount of solar radiation reduction would be broadly even across the earth. It's the sulphate in the atmosphere that's thought to cause uneven effects.

https://www.livescience.com/22202-space-mirrors-global-warming.html

A recent study from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology added the effect of space mirrors to four climate models. In each model, the space shades lowered the average global temperature to preindustrial levels, but unevenly. The poles warmed while the tropics cooled, fewer clouds formed, and the planet received less rainfall, especially in the Americas and northern Eurasia.

Load more comments

Every ton of magnesite is capable of removing around half a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere.

The largest coal power plant burns 1,288 tons of coal every hour, and produces around 4000 tons of CO2. So we would need 8000 tons of magnesite to capture one hour's worth of emissions. That would require mining around 2000 tons of magnesium.

How is this even a little bit interesting as a carbon capture method?

see more

Lol yeah, and how much CO2 is released from the act of mining? Absurd really.

Amen brother or sister. I actually look forward to eating that leftover pizza cold and straight out of the fridge.

see more

I always thought it was weird to not heat it up, then someone said that they actually preferred cold pizza. Now, I wouldn't go that far, but after trying it... damn, cold pizza is pretty good!

Are we really gonna die? How long do we have? Like for real?

see more
11 points · 3 days ago

No-one knows, but there are a lot of serious crisis scheduled to hit around mid-century. Such as fresh water shortage, global fishery collapse, and phosphorus shortages. The climate is a crazy uncertainty. At the start of the millennium we didn't think the Arctic would be ice-free (during summer) until late century, now it seems likely to happen within the next decade or two. No-one really knows, but I'd expect shit to get bad within 2-3 decades. Things will speed up rapidly once Earth's systems become net carbon emitters. Research suggests this is already happening.

By earths systems you mean the trapped carbon feed back loop that people in the thread are warning about? Is this going to end humanity?

see more

I mean that systems which were once carbon sinks (like the ocean), or carbon neutral (like native forests) begin to emit more carbon than they absorb. This is additional to trapped carbon in permafrost.

I don't know if it will end humanity, or when. But its worth noting that most past extinction events are primarily the result of rapid climate change. And "rapid" meant over 1000s of years, where as we are making similar changes over just a couple of centuries. IMO it will probably wipe out most species, us included, though I really couldn't say when.

Load more comments

I always thought the "VW Bus" or 'VW Combi" as it was often called, was an awful vehicle.

As a hippie in the late 60's, early 70's - most of my friends either had one, or wanted one. From their experience, I can tell you that they were slow, ponderous death traps that spit out engines on a regular basis.

One friend had his VW Bus flip over on it's side on the Golden Gate Bridge. Though the GGB is basically a 2 mile straight line, I asked him if he had turned the wheel suddenly, or done something to cause it to flip. He said no - it was just windy on the GGB that day, and it just blew over. In the 70's, it was typical on any hill on any American freeway to see VW Buses over in the far right lane, struggling up the hill at 40 MPH, while everybody else was driving 65.

Even in the hippie era, smart hippies bought Chevy, Dodge or Ford vans. They used more gas, but were much safer and had enough power to drive on freeways.

see more
2 points · 3 days ago

It's just that nothing looks quite as cute as those combi's.

Being a world leader isn't about having balls and standing up for what's right anymore.

Its primarily about money, power, and diplomacy, in that order.

see more

Depends what your world leading in.

Accurate. We've done bugger all since the 80's yet still worship ourselves as world leading progressives.

see more
0 points · 3 days ago

I moved here in 2006 expecting a fairly progressive country. It's not been far off the complete opposite. Still a lot of openly preachy Christians, with some invading schools. No drug law reform even though it's been 6yrs since US states started to legalize. A government of 9yrs that was fairly conservative and pretty much apathetic towards climate change. A river & lake water quality crisis. Systemic racism.

Still, not as bad as Aussie.

Load more comments

9 points · 3 days ago

Drove through Pukekohe the other day and took the back roads. Crazy how quickly it has changed. So many houses on what was farmland just 4yrs ago. It's pretty crazy considering how many centuries (millennia?) it takes for that top soil to generate. Humans be crazy.

I agree that the ecosystem is far more complicated and connected than we're aware, and it's quite possible we need quite a few of those species to sustain humanity. But I don't think we'd need all of them. And again, this is a profoundly selfish, human-centric analysis. In terms of overall biodiversity, such a scenario would indeed be awful.

see more

Glad you recognise that this scenario would be overwhelmingly depressing. Sometimes I see this used to rationalise the continued "progress" of humanity. A world with 50%, 70%, 90%, pick a large number, of extinct species, would not be a nice world to live in. I would imagine human suffering in such a future would be quite severe, with depression and suicide becoming endemic.

This assumes populations will continue to rise indefinitely. It's still happening in poorer countries, but as a nation becomes more advanced technologically the population growth slows. Japan is the most extreme example of this. It's predicted that this trend will happen for most countries over time, presumably in the next 100-200 years.

plus technology is bad ass. As an engineer, I can tell you that we are still way way off from reaching our potential as a society to utilize our resources. Japan has full indoor farming stations setup that grow plants several stories high, increasing the output for farming per acre exponentially. This is just an example of what I mean.

see more

My challenge to that would be; a) is it possible, given how society is organised, that the Earth's eco systems could support another 3 to 5 billion humans? And b) Given that declining populations seems to correlate with high material lifestyles (that of developed nations) is it possible to actually supply the goods and resources that would lift those in developing countries to similar lifestyles?

It would seem to me, that growth of material possessions could be enough in itself to hit limits. Just compare the number of goods people have today, in their homes and garages, compared to even 50yrs ago. Then imagine a whole lot of Asia trying to match that.

I've been debating giving up coffee. At the very least it's not particularly eco friendly as it can't be reliably grown in my country. Might as well do it now before it's too expensive. I can't even begin to imagine world wide consumption numbers.

57 points · 8 days ago

Taking advantage of people dumber than you is generally frowned upon, obviously it happens constantly

see more
-4 points · 8 days ago

Is it taking advantage though if you are completely up front? I hate MLM but my boss's wife has done a few and loves em. She's always upfront about all costs and how it works. At the end of the day it's just a system. Hell, the entire financial system is a bloody pyramid scam and I don't see most people outraged by it. If you're comfortable funnelling money to the top of the MLM pyramid then surely that's your choice?

But fuck those who intentionally scam others through MLM.

When you say naturally what exactly do you mean though? Because while the climate has always changed, there must also be a catalyst that changes it.

This is completely wrong. The climate of Earth has been in a constant state of flux since it began. The current state of the environment (the climate we live in) is very recent and temporary according to geological history. Even the dinosaurs lived in a different climate than we do, with much more oxygen, higher humidity and a wider 'tropical zone' than we have.

There is nothing stable about the Earth climate.

I believe we should be good stewards of our planet, and we should make all efforts to reduce waste (in all forms); it's just a smart idea. But what I have a problem with is people who make claims (that cost us freedom, money, and well-being) based on a theory, that is in it's 3rd iteration.

My point is, human caused climate change is disputed. Is debatable because it's a theory, it is not proven. People treat it like a proven fact. The hype is now centered around the internet and some media but it's hype, just like in the news in the 70's.

If the news of the 70's maliciously hid all the evidence about global warming and only told the public about global cooling we had no way to know about back then, where were the out spoken agenda driven scientists then? And, more central, why would the media purposely ignore global warming for global cooling? I'll tell you, because there was money in it. And when they found more scientists supported global warming they changed tune to line up at the idiot teet for more money.

Now, they've seen the error of their ways. They can blame people and convince politicians if they straddle the center line. They can avoid being disproved and ride the gravy train all the way to the bank if they only claim 'the climate is changing' (true verifiable fact) and YOU DID IT (unproved opinion/theory).

So they can hide behind the fact and beat you over the head with their theory.

And if they weren't all about making money, and not genuinely for saving the planet, why do all the measures they force on us include them making money in the process?

Ethenol

CFC bulbs

Carbon credits

Electric cars

All of these things made things worse for the environment but made people like Al Gore richer.

see more

This is completely wrong. The climate of Earth has been in a constant state of flux since it began.

I'm not saying it isn't. I agree that it's always changing, but there are external influences that cause that state of flux. Those things I listed are among those influences. Just like how the seasons work. We only get summer due to the way the Earth orbits the sun right? Every shift between states of climate are caused by something. It doesn't just happen for no reason.

My point is, human caused climate change is disputed. Is debatable because it's a theory, it is not proven. People treat it like a proven fact. The hype is now centered around the internet and some media but it's hype, just like in the news in the 70's.

Among the scientific community it is a consensus. Even many of the skeptics would be hard pressed to argue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. And we know that there is an extremely strong correlation with CO2 and current warming. In fact, as I said, it is the only correlation we can find. Do you not think that if there was some other natural reasoning for the warming of the planet, that we would not have found it by now? I believe we've even looked into underwater geothermal vents as a source of warming, but no dice. No-one has ever given another credible source of warming. So what exactly do you think is causing it if it's not CO2?

My understanding of the most recent skeptics view is that the planet isn't warming as fast as the models predict, but I don't know of many skeptics these days who disagree that CO2 is a GHG and has at least caused some warming. But if you can show me a skeptic whose a scientist and has a solid counter theory, please point me there.

If the news of the 70's maliciously hid all the evidence about global warming and only told the public about global cooling we had no way to know about back then, where were the out spoken agenda driven scientists then?

I never said it maliciously hid it. I simply said the global cooling theory got more coverage.

And if they weren't all about making money, and not genuinely for saving the planet, why do all the measures they force on us include them making money in the process?

Any major change required is of course going to make someone money somewhere. If a pesticide is found dangerous then someone is going to make money off a new pesticide. That doesn't make it a conspiracy.

How old are you? Cause I can tell you I am nearly 50. I remember the 70's.

I remember the 'Snowball Earth' theory and how we were CONSTANTLY bombarded by "experts" on the news that global cooling was a real threat.

None of this fanatical religious devotion to climate change is new, and like a fanatical religion you justify any overtly evil thing you do in the name of saving the Earth, like deny that 'global cooling' was the mantra of the 70's and 'global warming' was the 90's and now it's 'climate change'.

You're like a cold reader psychic, moving to such a generic term so you can't be proven wrong. Yes the climate is changing, shocker, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN CHANGING. It will always be changing.

The rate of change is supposedly faster now than ever before? So you decide how fast it naturally changes and it can NEVER EVER accelerate or decelerate?

No one, can provide proof that people are causing "climate change" (although it was changing before people and will be changing after people). Also, why is Mars heating up? Did you know that Mars is going through 'global warming' as well? I suppose people caused that too.

see more
1 point · 10 days ago · edited 10 days ago

First of all, I should apologize for my previous response. It was early and your post didn't make much sense to me. However, I shouldn't have approached it the way I did, and called it an incoherent rant, as that doesn't advance the conversation at all. So, apologies for that.

Secondly, I enter these conversation because I am extremely concerned about the future, especially for my little one. I do not do it to score internet points, or boost my own ego. And I'm not doing it to try and get one up on internet strangers. More than anything, I'd wish climate change wasn't a thing. It honestly makes me seriously anxious, and I have once almost had a panic attack thinking about it. Now you may think that is absurd, or that I'm brainwashed, but hopefully you can at least understand that I come at this from a place of genuine concern. I have been researching (as best a layman can) climate change for over a decade now. Trust me when I say that if I could find any convincing evidence that even hinted at the fact that this may all be wrong, I would jump on it like you wouldn't believe. The peace of mind it would give me would be unreal.

I remember the 'Snowball Earth' theory and how we were CONSTANTLY bombarded by "experts" on the news that global cooling was a real threat.

And I'm not denying that you do. In fact, from what I have read, the "Snowball Earth" theory was prevalent among the media. I wasn't around then, as I'm in my mid-30s now, but that doesn't mean we can't look back at the scientific literature and see that, at the time, the majority of scientific papers supported the theory of global warming. Only a minority supported global cooling, yet this was the story the media picked up on. Unless you were interested in, and were reading, the scientific literature around climate science at the time, then I can imagine it would have been difficult to verify the weight of the argument for global cooling in the media.

You're like a cold reader psychic, moving to such a generic term so you can't be proven wrong. Yes the climate is changing, shocker, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN CHANGING. It will always be changing.

I tried to point out that these terms have been used for some time. Global warming refers to the theory of the planet, on average, warming. Climate change is the result of that warming. Of course the terms have become almost synonymous these days, but that's mostly the fault of misuse in media and by others. Today, both refer to the same theory. This change of language, in my mind, is semantic as words and meanings often change through time. You can see here that the term global warming is still widely used today.

The rate of change is supposedly faster now than ever before?

To the best of our scientific knowledge, yes. We have not been able to detect a change in Earth's temperature anywhere as close as dramatic as today's warming when looking at historical references such as ice core samples.

So you decide how fast it naturally changes and it can NEVER EVER accelerate or decelerate? No one, can provide proof that people are causing "climate change" (although it was changing before people and will be changing after people).

When you say naturally what exactly do you mean though? Because while the climate has always changed, there must also be a catalyst that changes it. It doesn't change without reason, that would be magic. Non man-made influences on the climate include (but are not limited to) orbital variability, axial tilt shifts, solar irradiation variability, volcanic activity, or external influences like asteroid collisions. All past shifts in climate have been caused by something. These still impact the climate today, of course, but we can measure them. We have measured them, and there is no correlation to current warming other than increased CO2 from human activity.

Also, why is Mars heating up? Did you know that Mars is going through 'global warming' as well? I suppose people caused that too.

Mars undergoes much more dramatic shifts in orbit than Earth. The current warming of Mars is caused by this change in it's orbit.

I understand that it is unlikely I will change your opinion on this, but I do it for the small chance that you, or someone reading this, may change their mind (even if I don't change it completely, I may plant a seed for thought), because we desperately need to all be on the same page to make a better future possible!

Thanks for reading.

Load more comments

1.7k points · 10 days ago

Was at a wedding in Austin a couple years back. There were more than 500 people there. Everyone had found their seats and the Father of the Bride was starting his speech so everything fell quiet. It took a few seconds before I noticed the table behind us with a kid (4-6yo) blasting something on youtube on his ipad. The mother and everyone else at the table not batting an eye. Before FoB finished his next sentence I calmly and hunched over (I'm kinda tall) walked to the table and knelt down, greeted the little boy and then his mom. Because clearly the child was the boss here. I was not rude and kindly asked the boy if we could mute it just while The Man speaks. He nodded his head and turned it down himself. I thanked him and his mom, excused myself from the table and walked away. Kid kept his word. It rarely takes a minute. But teaching kids courtesy and awareness to those around you is well worth the time. PS I do NOT recommend doing this, I'm aware things could have gone sour, really fast. But at the time, FoB deserved respect and I didnt really think about it.

see more
39 points · 9 days ago

I think people would be surprised what kids would do if they just asked nicely and explained the reasoning as to why they are asking, rather than just ordering them to do something and expecting them to do it because they're an adult/parent/guardian.

Story of my child hood. Parents were strict af. Every rediculous seeming rule they gave me they never elaborated on. I would be so confused. I would beg them to explain why I can't do this certain thing and all they would reply was "I don't have to explain myself.". I was and still am a very intelligent individual. And as I grew older I realized more and more that I had been smarter that my parents in more that 75% of the shit they told me to do. Sad day :(. Seriously my whole life values went out the door

see more
2 points · 9 days ago

Yeah that sucks. Lots of kids are treated disrespectfully. Not that their parents don't love them. It's probably a result of their own parents during their childhoods.

Load more comments

Comment deleted10 days ago
2 points · 9 days ago

nihilism

Doesn't work for me. I need something more.

Comment deleted9 days ago
8 points · 9 days ago

Maybe not. Although I certainly don't believe in a "higher power", no-one can deny there is far more about the universe we don't know than do. There may be up to 11 dimensions, and we only perceive 4 right? And quantum mechanics shows us how strange and random the universe really is - where particles literally pop in and out of existence.

I dunno, maybe I'm not even looking for a reason to exist, just rather that I am a part of something greater than myself. Maybe it's a longing for connection beyond that of human connection.

Original Poster6 points · 10 days ago

Yep. I mean just look at the number of subs on /r/futurology compared to here. People are hopium addicts.

see more
7 points · 9 days ago

Dude, that sub is becoming as dark as here.

174 points · 10 days ago · edited 10 days ago

Memes aside, I honestly think we should prioritise the prospect of space colonisation as one of our main goals (akin to curing cancer and world peace and stuff).

We can "realistically" start off with practical mag lev railway for launching space shuttles cheaper; then try for retrieving small asteroids for resource mining in outer space; testing out larger scale self-sustainable habitat space stations... etc etc.

Edit: There's a rather large amount of cynics and nihilists here... okay look I admit it might sound like a naive kiddie dream to move into space. I probably would've agreed with the nihilistic comments during a different point in my life.

But when people talk about "futurism" or just "the future", don't they mean "a further point in time where something is better"? I hope deep down in everyone's heart, as a member of humanity, we would not have our vision be restricted by the past of humanity's violence and greed; but rather strive for a better future and its limitless possibilities.

Peace and love guys.

see more

Memes aside, I honestly think we should prioritise the prospect of space colonisation as one of our main goals (akin to curing cancer and world peace and stuff).

Possibly, as a means to securing our future as a species this would be a good idea. But at the same time I also feel like it could be used as an excuse to dump on Earth. This is the only living planet we have, and even if we get into space, we aren't going to be inhabiting anything but dead planets and moons for a long freaking time. It would be disastrous to lose the only thriving ecosystem in the galaxy in the name of "progress".

People keep saying how this is a big deal, and that overpopulation is a problem, but developed countries half birth rates lower than 2, meaning that their population is lowering. Population only rises in undeveloped Nations, meaning once the other countries catch up, regardless of how long that might be, we'll actually have a problem with the not being enough people

see more

The problem here is that they aren't declining, because immigration. Other than Japan, most other nations with declining population are not highly developed. Considering a lack of population growth causes serious problems within the framework of labour for capitalism (see Japan!), I very much doubt there is a goal here to stabilize the population. In fact it could cause serious economic issues - not that I really care about that, as I'd rather have a stable planet than stable capitalism.

I love buildings with curves that are designed nicely. I hate buildings that use curves just to be trendy. I also hate buildings that add vegetation to make themselves appear environmentally friendly. This building is a courtyard surrounded by glazing on a semi-urban urban site and the architects makes no mention about the jungle being irrigated by captured rainfall. Also LEED is bullshit.

source: have a USGBC credential

see more

Just looking at the photos it looks like a hella lot more concrete than vegetation. I'm really not sure how it can be classed as eco-friendly. God damn, I hate how we bandy that term around. Yes, this building probably has a lower impact than others, but you can bet your ass it, and it's inhabitants, generate a significant amount of GHGs.

Look man, sometimes this stuff gets hard to read. I know, as I also struggle with depression, suicidal ideation, and feeling hopeless in these discussions.

First thing I can suggest is to not read these comment sections. They are full of non experts either denying or venting their doom and desperation. This paints an inaccurate emotional picture that isn't helping you. If you talk to people in the know, they are also worried, but they are more measured.

The situation is not a binary switch of screwed or not. This is a minefield, and we need to start retreating from the field before walking in farther and farther.

Though the challenge is certainly immense, we are making progress. Market forces are driving down costs of better energy sources. The exponential adoption curve is in progress, and rich smart people like Gates and Bloomberg are trying to make the awesome happen. I can see everyday that more and more people realize that a strong economy without participants is an absurdity, and not in the interests of even the purest of capitalists.

We need some innovation, and quickly too. The challenge is immense, no doubt. But it starts with taking some responsibility over our thinking, leading by example in whatever way we can, and guarding our thoughts. If we don't believe we can do it, we can't. I would far rather try and be part of the solution.

see more

The situation is not a binary switch of screwed or not. This is a minefield, and we need to start retreating from the field before walking in farther and farther.

Problem is that it's fast becoming binary. I mean +2C was/is considered an extremely dangerous threat to human civilization. +3.5C was/is considered an existential threat. Now we see figures of 3C and higher talked about within terms of this century.

So at some point, whether it's +4 or +6 doesn't really make a whole lotta difference. It's game over for most, or all, of us.

How do you definite binary? Total human extinction? Because that's far from being in the cards at 4C. Massive famines, displacement, and breakdown of society in most of the world? Sure! But not extinction. That's pretty difficult.

see more

The collapse of civilisation is basically game over for most of us, so generally that's where I draw the line.

Load more comments

Well the solution in many developed states has been some form of welfare funded by the labor force through taxation. The argument is that as fertility rates decline and populations shrink, a smaller labor force would either have to be taxed at higher rates to pay for those programs or work longer. Alternatively, the retirement age could be raised to keep older folks in the workforce. Or immigration to replenish the labor force. Or cuts to programs to cut costs. Either way, tough decisions would have to be made.

see more

But money is just numbers in a database right? The actual physical resources to care for the elderly do exist (well, atm they do). Affordability is just a human invention. Of course, it's a little more complicated than that as trade is what gives us a lot of resources. But in a chaotic climate world, perhaps supplying the essentials through war-like labour initiatives and rationing could help. If you can supply food, water, shelter, and healthcare then you've got all the necessities covered.

This is a high-tail scenario relying on multiple positive feedback cycles to come about. However, that doesn't mean it's wrong. There is a lot of (scientific) uncertainty at the high tails. The most important part of the paper, I think, is this (emphasis mine):

The Stabilized Earth trajectory requires deliberate management of humanity's relationship with the rest of the Earth System if the world is to avoid crossing a planetary threshold. We suggest that a deep transformation based on a fundamental reorientation of human values, equity, behavior, institutions, economies, and technologies is required. Even so, the pathway towards Stabilized Earth will involve considerable changes to the functioning of the Earth System, suggesting that resilience-building strategies be given much higher priority than at present in decision making

see more

Yup, but like that's gonna happen. Even if you could do that, it takes generations to change the cultural narrative.

No the problem is that no amount of worrying about it as a single human being will help. So what's the point? I've known about global warming for at least 25 years - since I was in high school - and humanity has collectively done fuck all about it in all that time - mostly done things to make it worse. What good does it do me to think about "troublesome information" day after day when no one else cares?

see more

Very little, but I have found that leading by example (to the best of my ability) does do wonders for my own personal well being. I dunno what it is, probably some sort of psychological explanation. Reducing cognitive disonnence perhaps? Carrying on as if nothing were wrong just didn't work for me. I guess I feel better for knowing I'm not a completey ignorant consumer.

I think part of it is also trying to log out of this bullshit world we've created. There's something incredibly freeing about no longer being tempted by societies spoils (i.e buying lots of shit). Money doesn't hold the same power over me it once did.

u/s0cks_nz
Karma
21,724
Cake day
January 22, 2015
Trophy Case (1)
Three-Year Club

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.