I embrace climate change
[removed]
Posted Mar 31, 2022, 6:36 PM UTC
026
I think you are underestimating the effects that climate change will have on earth and especially on mankind ("pollution and garbage are worse"). I don't think you would embrace it if you'd think it could cost millions (billions?) of human lives.
22
I embrace it particularly because I don't think we can coexist with nature without fucking it up. Seeing this natural self regulation process is actually good for us, otherwise we would have already killed mankind. We won't be able to predict the future but it's likely going to be a mix of every scenario you can think of.
-9
Climate change isn't a self regulation process, it's just the result of our actions. It wasn't inevitable.
2
The earth is regulating itself,
Incorrect. There are no particular "regulating" mechanisms. It's all just physics.
we are not able to even scratch earth.
Correct, sort of. Obviously we did the climate change thing, and on a longer timescale can affect huge changes at the very top layer of Earth. We cannot in any way, except perhaps by intentionally nuking every surface on the planet, cause a risk to life on Earth in general.
This process is good for our planet
It's really not. You may not care about humanity, but species extinction is quite literally going at 100x rate compared to ordinary eras. Reducing biodiversity = opposite of good.
and we should adapt and improve at the meantime.
Probably.
Pollution and garbage
Are kinda meaningless in the long run. Plastic seemed terrible, but now there are already micro-organisms feeding on it. There will be massively more in 10 000 years or so. Radiation at low, Chernobyl levels, only seems to make natural wildlife preserves.
21
The earth is regulating itself. We cannot control nature and it will kill the majority of humans that have high dependencies and live in badly developed areas. Aka africa and Asia, it is very saddening but there simply are way too many humans on earth. Nature needs free room, but there are like only a handful of places that are not infested by humans. This coexistence is not possible, the future earth will host half of the current population or we all start living in pods.
-5
The earth is regulating itself.
At this point you're going to need to explain what you mean by that. Earth has no particular opposition or resistance towards being completely frozen nor to being in a state where temperatures are above boiling. There is nothing special keeping life, well, alive either, beyond adapting and re-filling niches.
We cannot control nature
Correct, up to a point. On a micro level we can. You may heard of farming, to start from the old ones. Likewise, we could have chosen to NOT cut tons of areas to farmland and thus causing dust storms and bigger hurricanes and such.
I guess I should say that we can AFFECT nature, but we have historically had little understanding or care towards the long term consequences.
and it will kill the majority of humans that have high dependencies and live in badly developed areas. Aka africa and Asia,
Specifically, being close to the equator and without the tech to artificially cool down spaces and to guarantee food and water. You can survive wet bulb temperatures if you can get enough cool water and the occasional break in a cooler space, but without those, death in hours. People in areas that end up having drought and famine will die slightly slower.
it is very saddening but there simply are way too many humans on earth.
Not really. There's no such thing as "too many humans" per se. Just too many for a particular condition. However, without fertilizers and advancements in food production, the theoretical maximum human population would be around 3.5 billion people.
Nature needs free room,
Not sure what you mean by that, either. Undisturbed spaces are important for biodiversity, sure, and probably the most low-effort way to support it.
but there are like only a handful of places that are not infested by humans. This coexistence is not possible,
No idea what you mean
the future earth will host half of the current population or we all start living in pods.
If by that you mean most of the population will be living in energy-efficient cities with significant amount of managed and unmanaged nature between them, you are correct. Even the current amount of people require a significant amount of infrastructure for support, and if we want to retain it, we need to do significant changes to protect the environment from our actions.
If you want people go back to sustenance farming, yeah, we'll lose about half of the population.
1
Im not spreading false information
Procceds to spread false information
17
Clarify which.
0†
[deleted]
-1
Who cares if it's "good for the planet" it's not a sentient being, meanwhile climate change is going to fuck the ecosystems we live in and rely upon. earth is a floatng rock in space that happens to have life on it. It's the life that's important.
6
uhhhhhhh you do know that we're all gonna die don't you?
5
WE likely won't
-1
I mean we literally all will. Maybe not due to climate change though. There’s also pandemics!
2
Context clues
0
This isn't an opinion: this is patently incorrect. Denial of anthropogenic influence on the Earth's climate is completely untenable from a scientific perspective: it isn't an argument, the IPCC, which is basically the consensus of Climate Scientists, literally states that evidence of major and transformative human influence on the climate system is "unequivocal". Scientists almost never state any hypothesis without some margin of uncertainty, even when it is for all intents and purposes certain; but with human-caused climate change, they do: anthropogenic climate change is as scientifically firm as gravity or darwinian evolution.
This climate change is far more recent in origin than you seem to believe: humanity started emitting Co2, the most major greenhouse gas which warms the climate, in mass, around 1850 or so; and the warming caused by these large-scale emissions of Co2 began to significantly emerge from background temperature variability in the 1980s, getting dramatically more pronounced and extreme every decade since.
The solution (at least as regards the further warming of the climate) is simple: transition energy systems and society at large from processes which emit significant quantities of Co2, and into systems that can truly sustain humanity in the long run, rather than for a short blip of a few decades. This solution, despite how truly beneficial it would be in it application to humanity at large, however comes into conflict with the present, predominately fossil-fuel based, energy and societal system status quo; which happens to be headed by some of the most greedy, pig-headed, blatantly corrupt people humanity has ever produced. As a result of this, these solutions, while proving their necessity and benefits year after year, have not been seriously pursued in any successful manner at the large scale; even as, by the year, they become more and more necessary for our species and the natural world to maintain its health.
Corporations like ExxonMobil have been well-documented as suppressing any attempt to threaten fossil fuel's long term hegemony, and bankrolling disinformation meant to confuse and deflect from climate change's dire effects, and the necessity to face it effectively. These corporations have given themselves a green spin these days, but it's all a facade: they keep on doing the same thing they've always done behind closed doors. Don't be their sucker: read up on accurate science regarding the threat of climate change, there's a lot to come by on the internet. Learning about the magnitude of the danger it poses to human civilization can be psychologically taxing --I know it from experience--, but it's always better to be aware of the truth, no matter how unfortunate, than to live in lies and pleasing narratives.
4
Man you wrote a good read, unfortunately I do not deny the humans fault in here. I just don't think we can stop it. Even if we transition to renewable energy, energy cars will never be replacing anything and the production of all the shit we consume is emitting way more co2 and cannot be stopped without returning to communal living.
The process is also going way too slow as even green parties corporate with major car manufacturers. We simply need to overthrow various governments or you will never see progress.
1
No. I want species to stay alive. I don’t care about “regulation” I care about the coral reefs and neat stuff of earth.
2
Consider this: I want to fucking live
2
Upvote THE POST if you disagree, downvote if you agree.
Downvote THIS COMMENT if you suspect the post pertains to any of the below:
-
Fake/impossible opinion
-
NSFW beyond reason
-
Unfit for the community
-
Based upon inept knowledge of the subject
-
Repost from the last 30 days
If you downvote this comment please do not vote on the post.
Normal voting rules for all comments.
Check out our new discord server here!
1
Take your upvote and go lol
1
You don't get the problem. Sure the planet is going to be fine, if by that you mean this hunk of rock. The life on it is another matter. If the climate changes to rapidly, all complex life could be wiped out. Humans aren't going to survive on this planet if all of our food sources die off.
I believe that if we don't change things significantly in the next few decades some humans will survive, but there will be famines and wars over food and water like the world has never seen before. Billions could die.
Climate refugees are already an unsolved issue.
You don't think we should focus on stopping climate change and should instead focus on polution and garbage. Why not both. Don't you realize that the solutions go together? The worst garbage and polution humans produce are almost all petroleum based. Plastics, noxious emissions from burned fuels. Reducing their use is important for all of those issues. Reducing climate change will reduce pollution and garbage.
1
I guess doing both is fine. But we need to figure out what to do with billions of africans and how to use more technology in a eco friendly way. Also where to house everyone.
On the other hand it requires a strong authority, and I don't see why they wouldn't just change nothing and keep us occupied with renewable energy and energy powered cars.
1
[deleted]
0
More to the point, I care about the livelihood of this planet as much if not a little more than humanity’s.
0
"The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race." -the unabomber
0
We can't stop it but we can postpone the worst of it
Indeed. But I have noticed the political standpoint generally is "lets stop climate change" as to gain voters because it sounds better than "lets postpone the affects of climate change".
These politicians are just as bad as Conservatives, they are just painted in different colours.
one side sugar coating it while actually attempting to work on it is wildly different than a side that is actively denying it and going out of their way to make it worse