zlacker

[parent] [thread] 14 comments
1. graype+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-01-08 12:13:33
I don’t use the hide button much on this site but I think I’ll make better use of it this year. Things like this ruin my day if I read thru them.

Yes, things are bad. I don’t think that painting the bleakest, most depressing mental image possible is good for me though.

replies(4): >>quonn+x >>tsak+D >>somedu+j2 >>blueto+O2
2. quonn+x[view] [source] 2024-01-08 12:18:34
>>graype+(OP)
It's not good for anyone, since it causes people to give up on any meaningful improvements.

Furthermore it's probably wrong, too. Just after my mom finished school, some people were talking about how the number of diabetics is rapidly rising so that soon there would not be enough land to raise all the pigs required to get the insulin.

This was just before synthetic insulin was invented.

replies(1): >>Shrezz+d1
3. tsak+D[view] [source] 2024-01-08 12:18:44
>>graype+(OP)
I can recommend this article by Hannah Ritchie which paints a much more realistic picture:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/02/hannah-r...

replies(2): >>jurgen+p4 >>graype+D4
◧◩
4. Shrezz+d1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-08 12:23:24
>>quonn+x
The article isn't an admission of failure & call to abandon all hope. It's a call to action, aiming to mitigate the worst impacts of the polycrisis.
replies(3): >>disgru+B1 >>drewco+f3 >>leotra+DP
◧◩◪
5. disgru+B1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-08 12:25:51
>>Shrezz+d1
Did you read the same article as I did?

I read most of it (I would have preferred study links so I could look at the uncertainties but whatevs) and it basically just said, everything's fucked and our only hope is to go back to small scale agriculture (which would require massive, massive population loss).

Like, the next century is gonna be touch and go for humanity (certainly at our current levels of technological sophistication) but just saying we're doomed is entirely unhelpful.

replies(1): >>taylod+HD
6. somedu+j2[view] [source] 2024-01-08 12:30:17
>>graype+(OP)
Man I looked at the front page of that website. I wouldn't be surprised if the plan was to eventually start a death cult, I can't explain why the hell a site like that would exist and why people would read it otherwise. What's the point, seriously?
7. blueto+O2[view] [source] 2024-01-08 12:33:26
>>graype+(OP)
It's a Western-centric narrative. The most polluting, densely-populated and industrialising countries like China and India contribute far more to the problem, and you don't find much moral scrutiny there.

A shallow person in the West somehow thinks that they can reduce their carbon footprint by consuming "environmentally-friendly" products coming from these countries, externalising their pollution there.

replies(1): >>Hikiko+15
◧◩◪
8. drewco+f3[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-08 12:35:59
>>Shrezz+d1
If it's a call to action, this is the action:

"Now, I’m just waiting for the end while enjoying the time we have left, like someone watching their last sunset."

◧◩
9. jurgen+p4[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-08 12:44:40
>>tsak+D
Thanks for pointing this out. I will read it carefully, and maybe even order her book. Do you have a reliable review of it somewhere?
◧◩
10. graype+D4[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-08 12:46:15
>>tsak+D
Thanks for that, made my morning coffee reading routine a little less anxiety inducing. /genuine

It’s nice to read about serious problems with a sense of optimism that don’t downplay the problem.

◧◩
11. Hikiko+15[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-08 12:48:05
>>blueto+O2
So it's Chinas fault the we moved production there so a few capitalists could get richer? Meanwhile their per capita co2 emissions are lower than ours while producing most of our stuff.
replies(1): >>grapes+Da
◧◩◪
12. grapes+Da[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-08 13:22:36
>>Hikiko+15
Sign of the times? Or sign of controlling resources prior to collapse. The growing deficits globally indicates an unsustainable cost for nearly all parties. Does anything come easy without a cost?
◧◩◪◨
13. taylod+HD[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-08 15:30:12
>>disgru+B1
Yeah, the article does a good job of presenting the problem, but it's solution of hey, let's go back to the 19th century sounds very...naive. We don't have to go backward in order to progress. We've been living unsustainably and wrecking the environment for the past 200 years.

Unfortunately, it's going to take us a lot longer to fix this problem than it did to create it. Hopefully that will be an important lesson learned for future generations.

replies(1): >>disgru+DG
◧◩◪◨⬒
14. disgru+DG[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-08 15:40:56
>>taylod+HD
> Yeah, the article does a good job of presenting the problem, but it's solution of hey, let's go back to the 19th century sounds very...naive.

As well as his/her proposed solution requiring most of the current population to die first as non-fertilizer based agriculture (certainly local agriculture) is really unlikely to be able to feed all of us.

◧◩◪
15. leotra+DP[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-08 16:12:04
>>Shrezz+d1
Yep, that what my mindset is while reading it. Although it's too late to completely stop it, we can only limit it's damage and impact if we want to.

I still blame the US elections of 2000 and 2016 for most of this and I go to my grave with that.

[go to top]