933

Vice.com

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago
[-] 1847953620@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago
[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago
[-] 1847953620@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Here's a rather decent visualization from an unorthodox but surprisingly high-quality source:

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Pay very close attention to the time scale, very close.

Edit: another supporting argument link for the lazy https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/05/13/climate-migration-an-impending-global-challenge/

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Pay very close attention to the time scale, very close.

Looks like the moral of the story of that graph is to rehire Genghis Khan to lower the temperature again.

Edit: Just to remind you of the original point I was making, when replying to your original comment, as we're drifting far away from it at this point. ...

YOU: I wonder exactly at what point in this unsurvivable train wreck it’ll make sense to stop singing Kumbaya and take out the pitchforks.

ME: We are a long way away from unsurvivable, no need for hysterics.

I'm not trying to dismiss climate change, quite the opposite, I believe it's happening and that we should do everything we can to fight it.

But to say its unsurvivable is just b.s. The species will carry on.

[-] 1847953620@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, let's argue over which functional definition of "surviving" is most appropriate. We can create all kinds of global tragedies, mass deaths, endanger the very fabric of civilization by creating economic disaster, have a climate that's too hot to survive without technology in most places, etc etc. But sure, if a few spots with humans might make it, what's the big deeeal?

You say you're not trying to dismiss it, yet enough of your replies are massively downplaying the danger because "it hasn't happened yet, and look! we've done a thing or two" and this is precisely the issue today.

People don't and so far have not been able to understand the rate of change and the relative shortness of the time scale, as well as the range of many mass-scale tragedies that are possible which are not the worst outcome.

Comparing it to doom-saying about nuclear war is simply illogical. Nuclear warfare either will happen, or it won't. Climate change is already a reality, the control of which we've already been largely failing to attain, and due to a combination of mass misunderstanding of it, ineffective government, and economic overdependence of growth, there is no certainty we will in the time that we need to, to prevent more crises. We have a clear understanding of where we're headed and where we will end up from whichever course of action we take, and it ranges from not-great to toppling civilization, with deaths of billions and global economic breakdown somewhere in that range.

But yes, you can keep your point about survivability, some humans will probably make it, they'll wonder why we were this stupid. I'm sure they'll recognize the brilliance in needing to split hairs about the definition of surviving, if the record of this conversation makes it to that point and they have the ability or desire to retrieve it. Those of us who include basic characteristics of our modern quality of life in the identity of "us" as a society, and the hundreds-of-millions-to-billions that die might take issue with your definition, though. But sure, you can have that one. "We'll" "survive" it.

this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
933 points (96.8% liked)

News

23367 readers
3151 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS