Disaster is nearing. Mass displacement. Mass starvation. Mass death. It is all imminent. Do you understand?
Disaster is nearing. Mass displacement. Mass starvation. Mass death. It is all imminent. Do you understand?
You're viewing a single thread.
While I get the sentiment and believe action is necessary, this is the wrong way to approach it. Panic is not the way we will solve this crisis.
There's a way out, and if we get through we'll be in a better place than we've ever been. We need to mass invest in green technology. Solar, wind, nuclear, throw everything at it and see what sticks. Solar is already on the right track to save us, but it's better if it goes even faster and have a few back up plans.
Panic is not the way we will solve this crisis.
In this case panic is preferable to completely ignoring the problem as is currently humanity's strategy.
But spreading panic is counterprodictive
As a species, we are pretty damn far from panic.
if a group of people are in a burning building and about to die, panic would actually help them get out
in this case, however, it's unlikely anyone is going to get out of this building, and it's too late to change things, so perhaps you are right
we should just find ways to make peace with the destruction of much of life on earth
Excellent example of what I mean. In a burning building panic isn't helpful and hinders the actual correct response, just like with climate change.
that's not true. in a burning building, freaking out and getting the fuck out of the building is smart and why it's instinctual
sitting around and debating the best way to proceed is stupid AF
that’s not true. in a burning building, freaking out and getting the fuck out of the building is smart and why it’s instinctual
Not at all, why do you think during fire drills you're instructed to stay calm?
They say that when there are large number of people and a risk of people being trampled or when there are young students and teachers need to keep count to make sure everyone gets out.
At this point, the risk of every person on earth dying due to inaction or calmly discussing small ways to change is much higher than if everyone panics. People should have panicked 50 years ago when they looked at data.
But go ahead, have calm rational discussions about policy decisions that can reduce exponential growth of destructive forces by 30 percent. Because nothing stops exponential growth like mild decreases in the rate of change.
It's not about policy but about economics. Solar is growing exponentially and will soon be our cheapest source of energy, even so cheap that it will be cheaper to make carbon hydrates from the air than pump up fossil fuels.
Nothing else has worked.
Is it on its way to save us though? Sure the global north might be able to escape the worst and maintain some semblance of normality but how does that work for the remaining 90% of the world? Those that can neither afford nor have the time to wait until the "green energy revolution" reaches them? Do we just accept they'll never be able to reap the benefits of their own exploitation?
I know you don't have the answers but these are questions we nees to grapple with that nobody seems to know how to answer..
A lot of places in the global south are already using solar and wind because it's cheaper than trying to get on the oil competition, cheap Chinese solar is increasing this. What would really help is western governments investing in designing open source solutions that make staying off oil easier but apparently the only thing that matters to us is short term profits
No we don't need to accept that, they can be better off by the end of this century than we are now.
platitudes will not save us from math
?
small gestures that make us feel good will not have a meaningful impact on the exponential changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere that will result in the destruction of the biosphere and are counter-productive because they create an illusion of safety and control, like like putting your seat belt on just before you slam into a wall while speeding at 300 mph.
better?