Capitalism. Because money is more important than life.
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
182 points (91.4% liked)
BrainWorms
1220 readers
56 users here now
Hey, welcome to BrainWorms.
This is a place where I post interesting things that I find and cant categorize into one of the main subs I follow. Enjoy a front seat as i descend into madness
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
We've looked at the data. It looks grim and concluded that it costs too much to avoid extinction.
Not that Soviet Union, Eastern European socialist states, China etc have been great for the environment.
That’s not true, but I don’t care to refute a talking point from 1991. Google it .
I don't know why you'd even bother to make a reply at that point
Just googled it. None of the top 10 countries are socialist.
What exactly did you google?
“It.” I googled it.
I expected nothing less
Lower your expectations. Then you’ll never be disappointed.
Would go into negatives in this case
Can’t go any lower than criticizing the one thing that can alleviate climate change, but it might be worth a try.
You've done a great job of convincing people with this totally useless conversation.
Maybe. But I did reiterate that socialism is the only political economy that stands a chance at dealing with climate change.
I just noted that so far the track record isn't great
Maybe so that people don't just die of existential despair?
It is very depressing to see our planet go to hell.
I feel like we’re reminded every day on here, it gets tiring to a point we don’t pay attention anymore.
People don't usually care to read the same thing over and over again for decades like that
Well they won't have to read about it for too much longer,, they'll be dying of heat, starvation, and skin cancer
Until then
As usual the mainstream journalists don't understand what the paper is about and produce hysterical headlines.
If you read the paper it does in no way say the earth is going to be uninhabitable. It does say that they have modelled which bits of the earth will become less habitable and they are areas of high population density, and also that the risk is reduced sognificant of climate change is limited to 2 degrees. That's starkly different from the headline.
That is also without any critical appraisal of the paper. My first thoughts are how accurate is transfering static lab based measures of habitability to dynamic open environments?
This research is mildly interesting but like most research frankly it is of limited scope and utility, and unfortunately a great deal of research is actually unreproducible dross.
On top of that a lot of journalism is unthinking dross. This makes a good headline to feed the beast that is the internet but it does not reflect the reality of the climate crisis.
Because news is sales, and this doesn't sell. In fact, it will likely hurt sales. And almost everyone can't do anything meaninful about it on an individual, immediate level. So it's hard to think about and hard to act on.
Bad for business, hard to digest = out of scope for corporate or government media.
Well, there is a really simple, meaningful thing we could do:
We could all go vegan.
If we stop paying for these products we'd solve 25% of the climate catastrophe tomorrow. But you don't want to. The rich, smart, educated people in the west won't even give up cheese to save their childrem from collaps.
We could all go vegan.
do you have a plan to make that happen?
Just do it, commie! Be the change you want to see in the world. :)
me choosing to do it doesn't change what the other 8 billion people do. do you have a plan besides telling people on the internet "just do it"?
No no, no plan, they suggested a hypothetical situation which, if it magically became true, would have an impact. As a result, they are absolved of any further effort, justification, or planning. This is the sum total of their contribution to solving global climate change. Think of them as an "ideas person," or a "visionary leader" who "manages by walking around."
After receiving this totally sufficient direction from an obviously exceptional thinker, it is entirely up to you to figure out how to make it work. If you don't, then you are not being a team player. Further criticism, or even just asking clarifying questions, is evidence YOU are the problem and are not taking constructive, solution-focused steps, and your bad attitude will be noted in your next performance review cycle along with being assigned full responsibility for letting the climate go to shit.
You sound so cynical. I didn't suggest to i.e. stop driving cars by tomorrow, because that would (as you stated) not be possible in the real word. Stop eating animal products is very different, because you choose to do so every single day and you CAN stop it tomorrow. It's a super simple action we could take. But most people don't do it because most people don't do it.
I obviously already broke that habit and I invite you give it a try.
It's in the news every day. What are you on about?
The same news that is obsessed with Donald Trump 24/7?
I just don't understand why people aren't taking climate change seriously?/s
because we know
We can't cost the shareholders.
Not good for profits, so it's swept under the rug while we deal with the bloated cheeto craziness as a diversion for something else even shittier happening.
The problem is we know but we are still making it worse! Capitalism has proven it can't fix this situation only speed it up!
Be cause there is still enough plausibility of denial, for now…
Where are the other bones ? The skeleton?
Because it's not new(s). badumtiss.jpg
Define uninhabitable. That’s not what I’ve heard from reputable sources on the topic.