(untitled)

Is humanity fuarrrked? If we keep ignoring our biggest problems, more is sure to surface. This is what I mean: >Global warming is rapidly increasing. As a result, 100 cubic kilometers melts off Antarctica every year according to NASA. >20% of the amazon rainforest is gone due to fire. >Megacorps are more powerful than ever. >Terrorism is somehow still going. >Poverty. Poor children in Africa can't eat burger. >Overpopulation. What does Lain think? People may disagree at some points—but discussion creates understanding. And with understanding, maybe we can do something. Even if it's on a really small scale. May just be wishful thinking on my part tho.

We need energy to solve all these problems if the greenrots can stop wasting time and resources on ((renewables)) and instead put those on making fusion viable then we will hit utopia in a few decades.

>Is humanity fuarrrked? Indeed. >Global warming is rapidly increasing. As a result, 100 cubic kilometers melts off Antarctica every year according to NASA. We've started a process that can't be stopped, unless every country starts working together in order to stop it. I just hope I'll be useful enough as a scientist to live in a postapo shelter. But there's still something we can do - I for example do not buy things I don't need, don't fall for consumerist soykaf, use public transport and have no intention to have children. I am also going to switch my diet from meat to mealworms, because they're much more efficient. As far as there is oil and corporations making business on it, this can't be stopped. Capitalism, by glorifying being selfish promotes making money at all cost, even if this means changing the climate and destroying ecosystem. >Megacorps are more powerful than ever. This can be solved by not buying their products, as simple as that. You can for example run only free software https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html But for a real change, people have to start being hurt, then it'll be too late already.

>>16638 >Terrorism is somehow still going And it will continue to do so until we start fighting the root of the problem with full commitment, not that hearts and minds BS. At the very least political Islam needs to end, if not the entire religion altogether. Their treatment of the muslim threat may be the only thing China does correctly. >Poverty >Overpopulation Mostly a problem in third world nations, so not really a problem. One may even say the two go hand in hand. We should just stop sending aid to Africa or dealing with China and leave India to be India. The problem is going to take care of itself.

>>16641 >live like labrat to reduce impact to minumum >neighbour has everything & 4 kids the personal impact thing is a nice meme to lead moral apostles to a creative suicide while the world keeps on turning without them. And if you really were serious about this you would need to stop global trade among other things. Freighter ships cost way more than your entire car traffic. Sole real benefit of reducing local traffic is less local air pollution which is nice but won't do soykaf for your intended goal.

>>16638 No-one is going to want to cull populations in China and India unless a super realist/fascist government takes a hold somewhere significant. So, let nature take its course. If Climate Change truly creates devastating consequences and millions die, it is the natural "toilet flush" of the Earth. The planet will live on without us, nothing to worry about. It is better to focus on things that you can control i.e your mind, your actions. Spending too much time trying to fix things that you can't even touch or change at all just creates a personal torture chamber in your brain that is incredibly hard to escape from. Sorry for the wishy washy bullshit, but its just my two cents.

>>16647 ?? they already culled the population with the one child policy. It's also happening globally indirectly - people are getting poorer with every decade. If they can't afford kids it's gg.

>>16638 >Megacorps are powerful than ever I would argue this lies at the heart of issue. If you look at it empirically, 100 companies contribute the most to carbon emissions. And, if you forgo that angle, what's the only other reason why we can't stop an ecological disaster besides from the fact that companies are limited liability? Governments are the most ineffective at curtailing capital, so it isn't a stretch to think their inability to control climate change is interconnected to this inability. For instance, the Amazon forests burning are in large part due to business practises over there. >Terrorism is somehow still going. As are interventionist wars still going. Look, I understand that terrorism is terrifying, but is it a coincidence when these terror attacks come from people that lived in countries NATO has been warring with? The fixation on terror time and time again has been a distraction that enables terrible policies that create the conditions for terror. It isn't any less terrorising when a bomb comes from a NATO military jet than some Jihadist. There's been a great deal of terror both ways. Yet, the de facto response the larger power has always been to repeat that terror tenfold. I'd say it's a non-issue if you take its framing. It's just more pearl clutching. >Poverty. Poor children in Africa can't eat burger. I can't help, but think maybe this is a soykafpost or bad phrasing because I chuckled. >Overpopulation. Alright, so it's sort of inevitable that this despair leads potentially genocidal ideas. Yes, I know you can counter overpopulation peacefully and without any murder nor even fascistic policies. However, I believe the thinking here is all wrong. The wording "overpopulation" began at least through the introduction of Malthus, and it was through his speculations about food supply that was used to justify sweatshop conditions in England. Then, there was another bout of overpopulation hysteria during the 60s again about food supply. Disregarding that the predictions, moral abuses, or the contributions of Malthus; the problem in both these cases are that they focused on consumption rather than production. Production after all is the reproduction of practices that expend resources to which consumption is secondary. You can reduce the population of China, make them eat bugs, and make all the power run on solar, but if the cells and components of solar panels still require labour and environment intensive rare earth minerals, then something is still amiss. I would disregard "overpopulation" for "overcapacity". Overcapacity is multifaceted. It can refer to populations, but also practices. A reach can reach its overcapacity for logging just as much as it can have an overcapacity for sustaining a large beaver population for example. Asides from that, it could be attractive for businesses in that it reveals unused capacity.

The earth will always be able to fix itself with time. In the long term what we do is of no matter to the Earth. We're just killing ourselves off.

Yep, i'ts going to happen. The elite is going to populate other planets, as the cicle continues, and we rot.

>>16651 lmao nice sci-fi nobody is going anywhere we re here forever

>>16689 >sci-fi What are you talking about, lainon? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mission_to_Mars#Current_intentions_by_nations_and_space_agencies

I've always felt that humans have like a sense that tells us something is wrong with the environment, like when animals just instinctively run inland when a tsunami is coming. But we are so detached from it we instead place our human issues onto it and choose to instead attack other humans with this panic like instinct in the back of our heads we don't realize is there to warn about environmental dangers. It's like our intelligence is clashing with our basic instincts to concoct some violent on edge species. We're basically the rabbit on the side of the road that sees the light of the car, and in its instinctual panic it runs out into the road and kills itself. To me it all comes down to humanity still needing to evolve more. We are still only at the beginning of what our intelligence could be, so we are pretty dumb and make a ton of mistakes. The good thing, humans are like cockroaches. We'll survive a lot longer then people give us. Even if we have to struggle and have to go through some serious problems in the future.

>>16647 Name one mass human die off that wasn't immediately followed by a baby boom. Frivolous wishes are the fruits of suffering. We need more individuals to go walkabout on heroic quests and rejoin society as mature, fully functioning human beings. Then all problems will be solved, almost automatically.

>>16700 Bruh. I'm sure we'll have fusion and flying cars any minute now too. There are no credible plans for terraforming any planet. Even getting there is possible but dubious. That plan definitely would be a short stay. More ambitious than a moonshot, which is impressive, but a pitiful fraction of the effort it would take for a real colony. Mars has a third Earth's gravity and no magnetic field. To retain an atmosphere long-term (assuming you could produce an atmosphere, which is a huge assumption) you would have to build a membrane around the whole planet. To have a small-scale colony in the dirt, you probably wouldn't last a generation or two. Either of these would be the largest engineering campaign ever undertaken. Both of them would also require a long period of support from a functioning biome before they became self-sufficient. A small colony that would be durable enough to serve as the home of humanity would take centuries. A terraformed planet would take thousands to tens of thousands of years. These are not realistic plans. The rich and powerful are not competent enough to keep a 100% functioning biome in shape. They are not nearly so great as to make a home among the stars. They're fuarrrked too. >>16714 If you're talking about 'mass human die-off' and referring to the World Wars and the following baby boom, you're thinking the wrong order of magnitude. That killed about 3% of the world population. Really terrible, but easily recoverable. This won't be 3% though. We've had a real mass human die-out in history, though. We know through genetic records that there was an event between 70k-100k years ago there was a massive population bottleneck where the species was reduced to between 3000 and 10,000 individuals. They did not bounce back fast. It's a large part of the reason homo sapiens has very low genetic diversity, and that inbreeding affects humans so much worse than other animals in general. One of the possible reasons we struggled on the brink of extinction for so long is that the climate had undergone a violent change, making our biome less hospitable for about a thousand years. We are likely going to see at least that long of a fallout, possibly much, much more. Geological time is incredibly long and unforgiving relative to the age of our civilization. Comparing that to wars and plagues and famines—even world wars and global plagues—belies that you don't really understand the magnitude of it all. It won't be the same. We won't get over this by going on walkabout. This is not an inward problem. It's a material problem that will affect the real, only world we derive our life from for far longer than we can withstand. It was pure luck we survived that previous bottleneck. And then we were hunter-gatherers who basically had perfect knowledge for surviving in such a world. Maybe this won't wipe out all humans, but what survives will be held down by a brutal, scarce world for millennia and we probably won't be the same beings by the end. If we're beings at all.

>>16720 I was dead for millennia before this brief period of bright light and loud sounds. After this little party is finished I suppose I will go back to the quiet of being everything and nothing, as all things have come from me and to me all things must return. Your pitiful "catastrophes" are amusing. But small in force and narrow in scope, as to me eternity is but a short while.

>>16704 >I've always felt that humans have like a sense that tells us something is wrong with the environment, like when animals just instinctively run inland when a tsunami is coming. Animals just hear more than us - including infrasounds and they can "smell" positive ions in air. Both things are caused by friction of moving rocks followed by a tsunami, volcano eruptions, earthquakes, etc. But organisms living on the Earth have no ability to predict consequences of their actions - evolution is blind, long time ago early bacteria caused the Great Oxidation Event by photosynthesis driving many organisms to extinction. We're doing a similar thing now, but compared to bacteria we have the ability to predict consequences. Stupid people are driving our existence to the end and that's just natural selection - our society and memes contained by it have proven they're not good enough to exist for a long time. We can adapt or die. >>16700 Not him, but living on another planet would be much harder, than living on the poluted Earth with devastated ecosystem - still you have liquid water, more or less usable atmosphere with oxygen, already available resources. So it is unlikely someone would leave the Earth just because of this.

>is humanity fuarrrked? yup. Stupid apes deserve it. I really, really wish rich people would take the brunt of the soykafstorm, rather than the other way around, but waddaya gonna do

>>16724 Uh, okay Mr. Lovecraft. Excuse me for caring about things outside of myself. >>16732 Yeah, same. Hopefully people start coming to their senses and acting before billions of proletarians start being slaughtered and guillotine them. Would be possibly the most effective way to minimize the disaster. Minimize, because we're already past some points of no return and feedback mechanisms are starting to kick in. Now it's about degree. Damage control. I vote we bring back the old left and start taking apart rich people and their industries. It's literally self-defense.

>>16732 >the stupid ones deserve it >i wish the poor would be saved make up your mind The masses as a whole were always a bunch of impulse-driven retards. It's only sensible than anyone sane will rather try to get rich and escape the pit than live out his savior complex in self-sacrifice.

What are your feelings on Extinction Rebellion? I don't really think that change comes from demanding from people in power to change things but maybe there is no time and this is also something that we shall try? Also how can the climate rebellion start from ourselves?

>>16735 at the end of the day, rich people bear much more responsibility for this than poor people, and therefore deserve more punishment. Rich people, by definition, have more control over the world than poor people do. Of course, there is no cosmic justice, so my desires are unimportant. >It's only sensible than anyone sane will rather try to get rich and escape the pit than live out his savior complex in self-sacrifice. Eh. Everyone dies sooner or later. All that really matters is whether you are satisfied with your life when you die. A life spent hounding money does not sound satisfying to me. Maybe my skills will be valuable enough that I can make a living even through disaster. I think only the Best of the Best get that treatment though. >>16739 it's misguided at best, malicious at worst. They're trying to get people arrested, which does nobody any good.

>>16741 Of course you gonna die anyway but that doesn't stop you from eating to avoid dead now. Same soykaf in general. Money is just a tool. You don't own whatever is in your bank anyway. There are regulations that if soykaf hits the fan the bank can take it. Same with insurance - when they at risk of defaulting by some massive catastrophe they are not obliged to pay out.

>>16742 yeah, money is a meal ticket. But so is having specialized knowledge. Doctors don't need to worry about having enough money to weather disasters, they are valuable enough that any social group that can get them will keep them alive.

>>16742 >>16744 also, what happens when USD and even gold are no longer as valuable as food and water? I'm sure the uber-rich have hoards in place for exactly that reason, but that level of wealth usually comes from luck, and hoarding will fail in the end too when the hungry masses figure out where your stores are. I'm much more interested in being a member of some community which takes care of its members.

>>16747 or, maybe put in another way: I am much more interested in surviving because I provide some valuable service, rather than perpetuating the retarded rent-seeking behaviour that got us in this mess in the first place.

>>16747 you wouldn't hold fiat - that's insane. But gold? You can store it til it's over and earn a profit. The rich make a profit every recession because they can ride it out and eat those who can't survive without selling in the crash. If you want to go full fallout scenario- some rich dude in his personal bunker will do way better than any poor person. They got soykaf bunkers with food &water systems lasting for years. And the richer ones can fuarrrk off to their private island. You really think you got a better chance as a poor user in the city? Ain't no helping each other. People backstab each other when things turn to soykaf.

>>16638 A bigger issue than mass die-offs will be the weight of human immigration. The numbers are staggering when it comes to how many displaced persons are going to be traveling within the next 50 years. Millions of refugees moving from resource depleted zones to ones that still have resources. Imagine entire countries or states moving from one to another because they have food. Compound those numbers with data for food resource depletion (wildlife and fish) and water depletion (non-replenishable fresh water) and the picture becomes very bleak. Our biggest problems are not the ones that kids on TV or politicians and megacorps cry about. Our biggest problems involve efficient allocation of and conservative use of resources. The best information on these subjects from a practical standpoint is ironically not environmental organizations, but rather military and defense. The only thing that can be reasonably expected is that people will start killing each other just to survive. How soon this will happen is important because armies need to buy bullets. The sad truth is that environmentalists and politicians alike do not understand that the value of human lives goes out the window as soon as people start to have rungs puled out of the bottom of maslov's hierarchy. tl:dr humanity is not fuarrrked, but life is going to suck for most people within the next two decades.

>>16752 >You really think you got a better chance as a poor user in the city? no, but I value being a good person, and I think I have valuable enough skills that I could probably earn my keep in most social dynamics. You're not going to convince me that being a greedy bastard is good. I've made my decisions and I've told you why. Stop trying. >ain't no helping each other. People backstab each other when things turn to soykaf. this is actually not consistent with observations. In complete-disaster situations like hurricanes, most people are very eager to cooperate. There is a small segment of the population that will backstab and loot, but IMO the much bigger threat is people who accumulate personal power and use it to wage petty conflicts, which waste resources.

>>16752 if you think you're going to be one of those people chilling on their private island, you're badly deluded.

>>16753 I am an environmentalist and I understand that fact fully. The military doesn't know anything about conservation and can't exist without pulling resources from the civilian world. The U.S. military is good at following orders and completing missions, but actually managing a fully closed and sustainable supply chain is not something they are taught to do.

>>16756 Hurricane & co are not comparable to longterm crash. You know it will be over soon and you can afford to help. Look at ussr if you want a crisis situation that lasted more than 2 weeks. Im also not trying to change your decisions or whatever. Just pointing at the idea of "the good guys will be rewarded" being merely wishful thinking.

>>16762 Yes, as I was saying earlier, there is no cosmic justice and whether I want the good guys to win is completely irrelevant.

>>16762 On the one hand, you have a situation like cuba, a closely knit community environment that lost its support from a superpower, forcing itself to adapt to almost steampunk levels of inventiveness. The machine hacking became a staple of cuban society, and thanks to their inventiveness, they were able to develop comparable life expectancy to the US at a fraction of the environmental footprint. As a case study, the cubans had a number of things going for them: >strong government that kept people in line (this prevented all out riots, even though people were still generally socially oppressed) >good environment to start urban growing operations >population size that was sustainable enough to support growth The counterpoint would be countries that went nearly bankrupt after the fall of the USSR, and are to this day living in some of the worst states of the Eurasian world. >>16761 While the military is an economic drain, it is seen as a short-term fix to all sorts of problems- mainly that in the absence of relevant solutions, the military is utilized to simply remove problems (by force). On a small scale, think of it like this: >African countries do not sustainable manage population and resources >Uneducated locals, with no means to improve quality of life turn to crime >Piracy becomes widespread >Governments allocate military task forces to kill pirates A more reasonable (long term) solution would be to try to solve the root cause of the situation: Teaching skills and providing assistance with resource management instead of simply trying to kill the people who are a product of their own social stupidity (this is also seen in south America, where fishermen turn to human trafficking or drug smuggling because they fished out all their livelihoods) "Sustainability" looks good until people need to start giving up their quality of life or goods and services they took for granted

The current setup of everything makes it so that slowing down would cause a crash, not some green dream. Attempts at restricting your own consumption is pointless in that you just help/allow others to waste more while we overall stay inside the quota. With our current technology we can't really turn green - we need the old and poisonous toolchain for innovation and progress; so the economy has to keep its swing for governments to have enough money to throw around for regulations to be viable. Things that do not matter and could be removed are >luxury This is by far the most cancerous one. Some people earn big capital and spend it to build castles in the clouds; I totally wouldn't mind if the top 1% or so would be wiped out (including murder) and their resources redistributed for research and development (not on welfare or other dumb soykaf). >first world fulfillment I don't think people understand that no amount of dream-chasing can make them happy. Tourism and sports are largely a waste of time, and so is Hollywood. People could do these things locally without an industry being built around it, and resources could go into R&D instead. >overpopulation This is probably the hardest pill to swallow, but welfare should only be about people with potential reaching it, not keeping every useless nobody alive.

>>16741 You say rich people bear more responsibility, but if you live in the US (you might not) you are the .1%

>>16785 it is true, my middle class US lifestyle is about 10 times more destructive than some poor Mexican's. I don't really have the capacity to make any resource-management decisions, though, whereas someone who owns capital(a very small class that I am not part of) is responsible for resource management, and is therefore more responsible than I for the current crisis. Also, being a middle class American is not being rich. I have to work or I will die. That is not what being rich means.

>>16638 blame anime

>>16638 >If we keep ignoring our biggest problems Better, you can actually find whatever truth you want to believe so you can ignore the problem and feel good about it. You can literally eat at McD's and claim to be an animal rights activist, or use disposable plastic dishes every day and claim to care about the environment. People have learned that you don't really need to act your beliefs, you just have to find a "truth" you are comfortable telling and tell it, no strings attached. You can ignore a world problem when it's convenient, and pick another world problem that supports your argument. You have infinite information, infinite truths, truth is just a tool to advertise yourself as the best person you can be in that moment.

>Global warming is rapidly increasing. Global warming is not an existential risk. It does create large amounts of complex debt, however. Large investments into nuclear power and desalinization, and probably a few seawalls, is the way out of this one. China doesn't care about any of that, and will continue to build a coal plant a week until MR = MC. >>16772 >Some people earn big capital and spend it to build castles in the clouds... Do you know how many people are employed to build and maintain those castles? A lot! Those resources you're talking about aren't liquid! They're stuff that needs to be moved around, taken care of, updated, utilized. And if you want to murder a bunch of people, you'd better draw a very, very solid line around who they are. And don't come running to me to complain when they shoot back. Also your government distribution plan will inevitably fail, and the powers of said government to randomly take people's stuff will inevitably expand, and millions will die, and then I guess you'll shrug and say "that wasn't real communism".

>>18791 >Global warming is not an existential risk. Did you know we've just started the next mass extinction of species? Warming is not just "Oh, it's hot here", but 200 million people seeking a new home, because their land stopped producing food. In summer, some places are going to have 50 Celsius temperature, which is [bold] a deadly temperature[/bold], if you don't have anything to cool yourself down. https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

>>18791 >Do you know how many people are employed to build and maintain those castles? A lot! Except the 0.1% have so much money they literally don't know how to spend it. They have run out of investment venues so right now they're just hoarding capital and letting it sit unused. Read up about it.

I'll try to be straightforward, I think the humanity will be very fuarrrked in the future. Take a look around, the degeneracy is growing (mostly radical political views), suicide rates are raising, fertility rate is slowing decreasing, the "politically correct" is quickly dominating everyone. Also, take a look at China and take your own conclusions. >Poverty. Poor children in Africa can't eat burger. >Overpopulation. Both are happening in Africa, it will be a hell-hole in the future. Overpopulation only happens in some places but it's generally where people have less education.

>>18792 >Warming is not just "Oh, it's hot here", but 200 million people seeking a new home Do not deny me the Malthusian gift we are soon to receive. Everyone wants to solve the problem, but no one wants to do the work.

>>16638 >Global warming is rapidly increasing. As a result, 100 cubic kilometers melts off Antarctica every year according to NASA. Move inland, invest into air-conditioned armored exoskeleton fursuits. >20% of the amazon rainforest is gone due to fire. Nobody cares. You liked those colorful birds? To hell with them. Genetic engineering will make you 2000x more colorful birds, with tails so huge and pretty they would be unable to fly or even move. >Megacorps are more powerful than ever. Join megacorp and remember that nothing is forever, every megacorp would fall or be absorbed by another megacorp. >Terrorism is somehow still going. And would always go, it's a part of humanity. Some say it woul be the only newsworthy thing of the future. >Poverty. Poor children in Africa can't eat burger. Africa is at its best point in history and gets better every day. >Overpopulation. Build new cities, there's plenty of land. Humanity is not fuarrrked, it can adapt to anything, but wimpy losers who expect the world to be a fun and happy disney movie full of laughs, dancing and doing nothing are fuarrrked.

>>18802 >Nobody cares. You liked those colorful birds? To hell with them. Genetic engineering will make you 2000x more colorful birds, with tails so huge and pretty they would be unable to fly or even move. Yeah, you wish. If you didn't know, almost every drug and antibiotic was discovered thanks to plants. Rain forest is the greatest reserve of biodiversity on Earth. Genes used for genetic engineering also don't come from nothing - you have to discover them first. Imagine global warming, overpopulation and lack of plants to discover new cures. I think AI and our knowledge isn't yet that advanced to make drugs without plants. >Build new cities, there's plenty of land. You don't seem to get the point of why overpopulation is dangerous. We're not out of land to build cities, but we're out of land to produce food. We're killing the ecosystem that feeds us. We managed to grow to 7,5 billion thanks to oil and new technology, but we're going to be out of oil soon. Using fossil fuels causes global warming and global warming causes desertification, droughts and mass extinction. The ocean is warming also. Warming water have less oxygen dissolved in it, meaning there won't be enough fish to eat, also if we kill algae, the ocean will stop producing oxygen at all. You like breathing, do you?

>>18802 Most of your post is obviously shortsighted or plain stupid, so I'll pick out the worst stuff. >Africa is at its best point in history and gets better every day. ah yes, being dominated by megacorps who exploit the local workforce to extract resources is "the best point in history". Having your national boundaries be largely meaningless and set by external boundaries is "the best point in history". Being the most vulnerable continent to climate change is "the best point in history". >Humanity is not fuarrrked, it can adapt to anything, but wimpy losers who expect the world to be a fun and happy disney movie full of laughs, dancing and doing nothing are fuarrrked. I think it's actually dipshits like you who think "alright everything is solved" without thinking through consequences or actually looking at how things work who are fuarrrked.

>>18806 s/set by external boundaries/set by external empires 100 years ago/

>>18804 >Yeah, you wish. If you didn't know, almost every drug and antibiotic was discovered thanks to plants. Rain forest is the greatest reserve of biodiversity on Earth. Genes used for genetic engineering also don't come from nothing - you have to discover them first. Yeah, we don't have any other option, but we dump a huge amount of money in CRISPR-Cas9 and quantum computing which is required to properly compute how proteins would fold as DNA is executed. We quite often know which protein we need to mark specific cancer cells for deleteion or what these particular microbes would hate, but we don't know how to build this protein that would build this molecule and have to look for something similar in nature. Someday the tyranny of nature would end and we would totally own everything, including the source code of life. Tomorrow or in a thousand years. >You don't seem to get the point of why overpopulation is dangerous. We're not out of land to build cities, but we're out of land to produce food. We're killing the ecosystem that feeds us. Build land to produce food then. Middle eastern countries farm the desert, can't see how it wouldn't work for other climates. You can also eat algae soylent, ocean surface area is enormous, as is Sun power output. >We managed to grow to 7,5 billion And if we won't have enough food - we can shrink back to 1 billion. We're not out of oil soon, it was the case before new ways of getting oil were invented. We move from oil for transportation and electricity generation, my city is full of EVs and is surrounded solar farms. >The ocean is warming also. Warming water have less oxygen dissolved in it, meaning there won't be enough fish to eat, also if we kill algae, the ocean will stop producing oxygen at all. You like breathing, do you? Algae likes warmth and produces its own oxygen though, it's more lilely to bloom and kill the fish, which I don't eat anyway. One of the ancient extinctions was caused by algae inventing how to make oxygen and killing off lifeforms that didn't like oxygen. The only way that I see for humanity to go extinct, apart from supernovas, is some science-fiction level of stupidity, like destroying the sky to fight against solar-powered robots or some psycho crashing an asteroid into Earth or inventing a way to turn air into sarin. Nature won't ever break us, we're nature itself, just with hands and consciousness.

>>18806 You picked the worst things about the huge continent and got sad. Try looking for the best things, there's more of them than bad things: they're finally getting their soykaf together with food and tropical diseases, finally getting on a path to be an equal to other continents. Besides, what are their alternatives, dirt huts and endurance hunting? I know about the consequences, I just like positive outcomes much more than I dislike negative ones and think that killing some birds nobody cares about is great if it's a stepping stone on a path to VR headsets, genetically engineered catgirls, youtube, onaholes, quantum computers and having a nice job in a megacity megacorp.

>>18809 >The only way that I see for humanity to go extinct, apart from supernovas, is some science-fiction level of stupidity fantastic, we're completely safe

>>18810 got sad? I got fuarrrking angry. >they're finally getting their soykaf together with food and tropical diseases "finally" as in recovering back to how they were doing before the trans-atlantic slave trade? >finally getting on a path to be an equal to other continents if they can successfully throw off neo-imperialism, sure. >Besides, what are their alternatives, dirt huts and endurance hunting? I'm sure many of them would prefer that to living in a slum. >killing some birds nobody cares about I care deeply about the birds. fuarrrk off leave them alone. >a stepping stone on a path to VR headsets, genetically engineered catgirls, youtube, onaholes, quantum computers and having a nice job in a megacity megacorp. that sounds deeply unpleasant. If you want to drown yourself in mindless entertainment, be my guest, but I am not interested. >>18811 it's worth noting that it's pretty rare for all the garbage to pile up like that. The real problem is that it's diffused over a huge area and a lot of it is below the water level as well.

>>18809 >Build land to produce food then. Middle eastern countries farm the desert, can't see how it wouldn't work for other climates. They pump fresh water from the ground there - fresh water in the ground is limited, what are you going to do, after it's gone, build? >You can also eat algae soylent, ocean surface area is enormous, as is Sun power output. 1. Again, the ocean is warming. 2. You would kill organisms living in the ocean, by taking their space and resources, just like we did on the surface. >And if we won't have enough food - we can shrink back to 1 billion. But you know it means most us are going to die then? The most optimistic scenario is that we'll stop having children, the worst is people will start dying out of hunger and epidemics and I bet it won't stop on 1 billion. >Algae likes warmth What about no? >produces its own oxygen though, it's more lilely to bloom and kill the fish, which I don't eat anyway. Yeah, they produce their own oxygen, they can't use, because it doesn't dissolve in hot water. If the water gets too hot and oxygenless, algae is going to be replaced with sulfur bacteria. Everything we care about will die. >One of the ancient extinctions was caused by algae inventing how to make oxygen and killing off lifeforms that didn't like oxygen. This story is different from what you say - back there oxygen was toxic for every life form, including cyanobacteria producing it. What happened there was almost every life form died, but some survived, because a mutation gave them ability to breathe using oxygen. Here, read some evidence: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/44677/aquatic-dead-zones https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Phytoplankton >Because phytoplankton are so crucial to ocean biology and climate, any change in their productivity could have a significant influence on biodiversity, fisheries and the human food supply, and the pace of global warming. >Many models of ocean chemistry and biology predict that as the ocean surface warms in response to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases, phytoplankton productivity will decline. Productivity is expected to drop because as the surface waters warm, the water column becomes increasingly stratified; there is less vertical mixing to recycle nutrients from deep waters back to the surface. Please stop talking like it's not a big deal.

>>18812 >"finally" as in recovering back to how they were doing before the trans-atlantic slave trade? With their in-African tribal slave trade they did not much better than during trans-atlantic slave trade. Europeans exploited and fueled divides that already existed. >if they can successfully throw off neo-imperialism, sure. It's literally civilization helping them join the planetary workforce as something more than sulfur miners, through education, material aid and getting rid of debilitating tropical diseases. Africa is getting unfucked. >I'm sure many of them would prefer that to living in a slum. They still choose to live in a slum though, it has better quality of life than a dirt hut. There are, at very least, doctors somewhere nearby. >I care deeply about the birds. fuarrrk off leave them alone. You can watch them in VR anytime. Same with some vibrant jungle paradises. Have you seen that Avatar movie? People on Earth lived in bleak megacities and used distant Pandora planet as a source of natural imagery, as some dreamy paradise land. Jungles and their birds don't have to exist to inspire those who love colorful things. Humanity can never be truly fuarrrked. Even if humanity is a million of cave dwellers hiding from a nuclear wasteland above eating mushrooms and algae, it's still humanity and it would still adapt and rebuild itself. >that sounds deeply unpleasant. If you want to drown yourself in mindless entertainment, be my guest, but I am not interested. I don't want to drown in it, but I want to have these things and I would pick them over watching birds or dancing in a circle around a campfire or whatever people had to do to entertain themselves before video games were invented.

>>18814 >You can watch them in VR anytime. I think you are beyond convincing but the planet cannot function with just chicken and humans. It doesn't work like this. There is a reason why biodiversity is something worth preserving. If you wiped mosquitoes off the Earth you would do more damage than if you wiped humans.

>>18816 Planet - no, nature would grind to a "halt" which is actually a slumber, if we'll leave - over millions of years, those birds would respawn out of DNA and organics lying around. But as long as we can build bioreactors, harvest organics to grow mushrooms, split water into H2 and O2 using electricity, transfer heat and pass knowledge between generations - humanity is not fuarrrked. Current way of life is, some parts of nature are, humanity is not. I'm beyond convincing, yes, I feel that we are the peak manifestation of the fundamental property of matter which answers the only question in the Universe - "what can be in this Universe?" Opposing properties of matter or attempting to slow down the train is futile, even if you sterilize the planet with supernova, matter would evolve to this point again and again and again. If you destroy humans and leave birds, birds would evolve, invent bird onaholes and would proceed to "destroy the ecosystem", enslaving the natural order to the whims of the consciousness. You can only accelerate it and hope that we invent proper genetic engineering and thermonuclear reactors before resources run out and chaos begins, slowing us down for a few hundred years while these 7.5 billions eat 6.5 billions to leave just 1. Not fuarrrking us, not stopping us, just slowing us down.

>>18814 >Europeans exploited and fueled divides that already existed. yes, and that fuarrrked it up. Additionally, later on Europeans directly came in and conquered and ran things themselves. >It's literally civilization helping them join the planetary workforce lmao "joining the workforce" is the ultimate good. Neoliberal propaganda much? >They still choose to live in a slum though I don't think anyone has ever chosen to live in a slum. It's the best of two soykafty choices, stay on a subsistence farm that's failing due to climate change or move to a soykafty apartment in the city. >You can watch them in VR anytime. Same with some vibrant jungle paradises. Have you seen that Avatar movie? People on Earth lived in bleak megacities and used distant Pandora planet as a source of natural imagery, as some dreamy paradise land. Yes, that's meant to be dystopian. Are you so deluded you can't even realize how horrible that sounds? I would rather kill myself than never walk in a forest again. >Humanity can never be truly fuarrrked. Even if humanity is a million of cave dwellers hiding from a nuclear wasteland above eating mushrooms and algae, it's still humanity and it would still adapt and rebuild itself. I have no doubt of that. But I also don't want that to happen. For reasons that I think should be obvious. >>18818 >I feel that we are the peak manifestation of the fundamental property of matter which answers the only question in the Universe - "what can be in this Universe?" Imagine thinking that there is any inherent meaning or purpose in anything.

>Be american >Bomb the soykaf out of third countries >Don't realize you can't beat an ideology with only violence >Terrorism is somehow still going.

>>16646 I agree with the accelerationist angle but I just can't bring myself to act like I don't give a soykaf. I have only stopped arguing with people because I know there's no changing anything.

>>18822 >Don't realize you can't beat an ideology with only violence You are confusing the process with the goal. The goal that requires the process of bombing random third-worlders is to deplete the supply of bombs, thus require the buying of more bombs from bomb manufacturers. It's about funnelling tax dollars into military-industrial complex coffers. The military-industrial complex has no interest in ending terrorism. Peace is bad for the arms business. Politicians go along with the fraud because looking "tough on terrorism" is a voter-winner in the 21st century United States, journalists go along with the fraud because peace means slow news days, and military officers go along with the fraud because a long personal history of recommending arms manufacturer X's products for procurement equals a lucrative post-retirement consultancy, VP job, or boardroom seat with arms manufacturer X.

The way I see it we are unbelievably ignorant and unconscious toward nature, life and existence. It's delusional to think that we are immune to the natural barriers and that it is a great loss for us to get extinct or something. We are really intelligent beings but our consciousness is not evolved enough. We are selfish and evil, and that is something that we can't fix by ourselves. I believe we are still in the middle of evolution and a great extinction is necessary. So yes, we are fuarrrked, but we are not all that is. The earth will go on and nature will thrive and I am happy with that.

>>18791 >Some people earn big capital and spend it to build castles in the clouds... >Do you know how many people are employed to build and maintain those castles? A lot! Those resources you're talking about aren't liquid! They're stuff that needs to be moved around, taken care of, updated, utilized. Parasitic industries and economies employ a large number of humans needlessly in many cases. The human trafficking industry could be said to be "positive" because it employs dedicated and capable smugglers, forgers, and logistics workers, the same could be said of the narcotic industries (both legal and illegal). The illegal sex trade while socially destructive, is actually extremely profitable (otherwise nobody would do it). Arguing the morality of efficiency is difficult, but arguing the efficiency of work (or lack thereof) is not. A perfect example that I have seen in more major cities are people who drive trucks around at night to drop scooters at waypoints (i presume they get paid to do so) just because millenials need to feel like they are "saving the environment" by renting a scooter with an app instead of driving, taking public transportation, or even just fuarrrking walking the 6 blocks from their dorm to the store. That does not even cover the material cost (manufacturing, delivery, and hazardous waste produced by batteries). to be honest this is probably the biggest problem I have with musk and friends, because crazy ideas that make little sense from a conservation standpoint are done "because they can" in the name of economic gains. While gas vehicles are not "good" for the environment, electric cars are marketed as a "better" solution, even though cities need to burn coal or other fossil fuels to power the batteries that took large quantities of fresh water, gas, and machines to pull from the earth, process, and then turn into fire hazards that make electric vehicles imminent fiery death traps, all in the name of "muh environment"

>>18839 IIRC Norway has forbidden all car ads from talking about ecology or environment because it's a lie. Building a new hybrid car has a bigger carbon footprint than driving your old car for the rest of your life. It really says a lot that as soon as a problem comes up on this world, the first thing people do is try to make a dollar from it. Companies proud themselves on printing their booklet with recycled paper to save the environment then the product you bought was made with planned obsolescence in mind and is designed to break and not be repairable. Governments should step in and stop this soykaf but thanks to capitalism and the communist boogeyman there is nothing we can do. We probably wouldn't be able to save this planet if we wanted to, but the truth is that nobody cares, or if they care they can just listen to whoever tells a different story.

>>18838 >we are unbelievably ignorant and unconscious toward nature, life and existence. I see it in a similar light. The reason why things are totally fuarrrked up is because a couple thousand years ago we decided that we were the ones in charge, and get to determine who gets to eat and who doesn't (agriculture), and that we somehow know how one ought to live. Nature has gotten that figured out a long time ago, but we today shy away from living naturally (at the mercy of nature) because it's not convenient enough, doesn't provide the cool gadgets or is "too brutal". >I believe we are still in the middle of evolution and a great extinction is necessary. Extinction would give us another chance at living normally again, in small tribal communities. I believe that would solve alot of problems (including the ones listed in OP). It's evident that making one set of rules, applying that to millions of people and trying to enforce it just doesn't work (see every country today). Smaller communities or families are just easier to manage. There's not much to manage in fact, and that's the point, when humans realize that they should let go and be embraced by nature again, that's when life gets good again. The worst thing about modern civilization is that you can't escape. You can't really just say "fuarrrk this" and move into another part of the woods. You're stuck. So much for freedom.. for what? Technology? fuarrrk that, I'd rather have happiness. Counsciousness / intelligence is a double edged sword with which we get to make a decision since we're the first ones to wield it on earth. It's clear that life is converging towards complexity, intelligent beings (see dolphins and other apes). Now we've got a decision to do, are we going to be the ones who wielded intelligence like dumbasses and fuarrrked it all up, or are we gonna be the pioneers future intelligent animals are going to look back on positively? If these ideas are familiar to you then you've probably read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, if not and you're interested in this sorta thing, you could read it.

>>18841 The truth is that the majority of human beings are no different than animals in terms of ethical and logical thinking.

>>16638 You could solve so much of this by taking down just a few people

>>18847 >just a few people

>>18853 I completely agree with that, but some should be sooner in line.

>>16645 >"Mostly a problem in third world nations, so not really a problem"

>>18847 Why not just turn some people gay?

>>18847 While I agree, this is by far not a profane statement. Who are these few, how do you select them? Will you test the population and if so how? "Questions that everyone should know"? How to accumulate for those with learning disabilities, but otherwise proper members of society. How do you measure those intelligent enough, but actually actively soykafting on our environment or human advancement for, like we talked about before, personal greed or similar reasons? How to handle third worlders, who may not contribute to our betterment but have such a small footprint, they're also not relevant on worsening it? Overpopulation will be probably one of our biggest challenges the next centuries, fired up by climate change maybe our biggest, but by far it won't be as easy solved as playing hunger games/battle royale on a mass scale. To bring another idea into this, I'm thinking about an AI analysing people on who "cares" and who doesn't. Based on avoiding travels, doing a good job, looking where the daily bread actually comes from, avoiding single-use products and harshly not being a strain on society/the social environment. Of course this is a problem in its own way as these parameter might be highly subjective and we would need a quasi police state first before we could start any kind of measurements. Also it basically sounds like the chinese social credit system, which it'll likely turn into once politicians disposed the bad part of population for the betterment of humanity or some soykaf. A good book on somewhat this topic is march of the morons. I highly recommend it.

>>18859 Your idea of an AI analysing every aspect of the psyche of people is by far the worst idea in this thread, so congrats, that has some merit.

>>18859 Motherfucker they had groups they're in it's not hard. You already know the ones

>>18859 How horrifying.

>>18858 >Why not just turn some people gay? >>18853

We are beyond saving ourselves. It is too late. Aerosols are keeping us artificially cool; if we fix our energy and pollution problems, our heating will accelerate. The Arctic permafrost will melt no matter what, which will create an unstoppable chain reaction of gases being released. Plus there is the blue ocean event, where we no longer reflect enough light due to ice caps melting, meaning everything will melt and heat up even faster. Most of humanity will die by the end of this century; if you want to live, dedicate your all to moving to NZ. That is where the rich and powerful are spending massive amounts of money to move to.

Que sera sera Whatever will be will be The future's not ours to see Que sera sera

destruction is a creative force, with the rolling mass protests and effects of climate change already being felt by the west I hope for collapse so that there is at least a chance we allocate our efforts into making sure this never happens again, and we survive the literal second impact. a better world is possible, nuclear is necessary, longer we wait the more geoengineering necessary (dangerous). don't worry too much about things you cannot change, and change the things you can, live on your own terms and help your neighbors.

>>18874 >with the rolling mass protests and effects of climate change already being felt by the west lol, the streets in front of my house are littered with Happy Meal bags.

Yeah I think we're fuarrrked. Smoke weed and enjoy your life while times are relatively okay. Ecosystem: Our oceans are becoming toxic and hypoxic, and coming ever closer to the point where they won't compensate for the warming. All of our water is polluted with plastic and drugs. Our forests are disappearing quickly, 0.5% from lumber and much of it from fires and slow collapse of damaged ecosystems (collapses around 25-20% deforestation, sometimes higher depending on how resources were extracted and can take as long as 100 years for full collapse. Our air is becoming less breathable with concentrations of co2, making the biggest driver of climate destruction (us) even dumber. The rising temperatures are creating more droughts and larger uninhabitable spaces, as well as creating more extreme weather events where large centennial droughts, floods, hurricanes, and fires become an annual thing. Society: Many resources are set to run out of use in the next roughly 100 years: sand (roads, silicon, buildings), many rare earth metals, oil (yay but not because society depends on it), and usable soil due to industrial agriculture. Fish supplies will be severely damaged due to points above and overfishing, perhaps doubly so to overcompensate for imminent agricultural troubles. Climate and state refugees will become the norm. As the governments of the world face more instability they will find it necessary to become more totalitarian to maintain their state. IoT, drones, and urban weaponry will prevent any meaningful uprising, as well as the perverse power grab corporations and government have and thus will fill any societal vacuum that may arise. I seriously doubt that technology will save us. If society is going terminal and resources are about to be slim, how could we hope to terriform Earth back to something livable and sustainable? Going primitive isn't gonna help either, since we've already baked in destructive feedback loops, oh and good luck finding a path where society voluntarily chooses to maintain primitive tribes. How could anybody seeing humanity still going strong in a 1000 years? Homosapien is kill. What a bloody and disgusting run we've had.

Clarification: 0.5% of our forests are cleared for lumber *annually*.

>>18880 > and usable soil due to industrial agriculture *due to the meat industry only a small part of our crops are for human consumption

>>18881 Note that 100*(.995^100) ~= 60.58 Moreover 100*(.995^150) ~= 47.14 So at that rate in 100 years the forest population decreases almost to it's half, and in 150 years, there's little over half of the forests.

>>18841 >If these ideas are familiar to you then you've probably read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, if not and you're interested in this sorta thing, you could read it I don't like to read about things like that. I think it's better to keep these thoughts clear from external influence. Anyway, it's cool to know that someone thinks in a similar way. >>18843 Yes.

>>18880 >Yeah I think we're fuarrrked. Smoke weed and enjoy your life while times are relatively okay. It's weird that this is the attitude of pretty much everyone I know. And it's even weirder that I'm genuinely fine with it. Accept that which you cannot change, that kind of thing. Not gonna give up trying to make life tolerable, but it's important to recognize that it's a futile battle which we fight because we have to, not because we think we can win. Love Lain, Hail Eris, a hundred thousand days and nights and the world will be still.

>>18908 why even live in a world like that?

>>18908 Why not be the change you want to see in this world? Even if we have a very little impact on the general outcome of things, I think we all as humans have the obligation of performing in the way we believe to be right. Even if the rest won't, since we are humans and have a model for how we think humans ought to behave, then we should aim to do that. If most people would otherwise I do not think that means we are justified to go the easy way and comply with them and do harm onto our environment (social, political, natural, intellectual, whatever it may be) if we know we are doing so, unless we actually think that by doing so we're doing right. If I do not agree that garbage is purchased to be thrown into rivers, I should aim to reduce my garbage consumption. On the other hand someone may think it's good to do it because that'll accelerate the process that would finally rid men off this planet. But the other's motivations should not be my own, not even if they align to the majority. If there's anything I noticed is that the mass achieves little by itself, it is only through those who think different that there is ever any change, and if the mass has a tangible effect on the events of our world, that is usually because there is always somebody else telling it how to think, how to behave. Thus following the mass means acting on someone else's behalf.

>>18911 Not him and I do my best, but you have no idea of how much attrition you encounter from people if you get half serious about these things. I have resigned that this stuff is just a glorified hobby, you will change nothing. For every person you might bring to your side, you will convince a thousand to waste more just to spite your silly ways. The best thing you can do is to not have kids.

I just want the apocalypse lainanons, the earlier this society collapses the better (which i think it's inevitable, like in the Foundation series, the only thing i want is to experience this) just imagine, you don't have to waste your life in a job you don't like earning useless things, you would only try to survive like all would do, people would be forced to make communities to survive, people would fight for their lifes, fuarrrk, you would feel alive. The only problem i see with this are guns, melee combat seems far more fun and easy in every way

>>18909 you mean the world we live in? Because being alive is good. Even someone with the meanest possible life has the opportunity to smile every once in a while. >>18911 >Even if we have a very little impact on the general outcome of things, I think we all as humans have the obligation of performing in the way we believe to be right. This is essentially what I said. I am taking steps to live intentionally. It's hard because there is such immense social pressure not to, but I will. >Thus following the mass means acting on someone else's behalf. I think following the mass just means taking the path of least resistance. Nobody can claim to control the masses, they can only ride the wave.

>>18913 most people aren't fighters. I'm sure not. I'm a scavenger. It's far more likely that you'll get shot by a fascist government or starve to death. It won't be like post-apocalyptic fiction. Just a slow descent into dark ages, over multiple lifetimes. Just like in the Foundation series.

>>18911 >>18915 forgot pic

>>18917 Changes in the biosphere have been by far the greatest influence on living organisms for several billion years now. Mankind is about to find this out the hard way.

>>18911 Yea... collapse now and avoid the rush. Reduce energy and consumption as close as nil as possible and try to get off the grid, eat eco-consciously, and try to be a step ahead of whatever tyranny awaits me and society. Get my own rural property with enough space for at least a few people to live in comfortably, make a water catchment system, find a way to build batteries out of scavenged material that will connect to my hopefully reliable solar panels, redundant data and information backups for anybody lucky enough to have power and working computers, or unlucky enough to be able to scribe it, keep a garden with some chickens all sustainable and fertilizer free and growing enough to feed at least a half dozen people, as well as some medicinal herbs armed with street-medic level training and knowledge of how to treat basic ailments. Once soykaf goes down, whether or not the above is achieved, I'll do my best to spread my knowledge and manpower to anybody trying to sustain peacefully. I'm not gonna pretend this is to save the world, though. What the fuarrrk would these actions be doing towards that? Give an extra few minutes of resource exploitation to the likes of Nestle, Raytheon, or whatever else? Maybe allow some tribe to come into power post-collapse and let their capitalist-primed ideals for living have an extended shot? No, this is for my survival, jammit! Until this God-forsaken Earth takes my life on its own terms.

>>18940 I really just wanted to be a writer. It's so depressing that I chose this time in history to be that.

Some relevent material. Decide for yourself.

>>18819 >Imagine thinking that there is any inherent meaning or purpose in anything. Universe really seems to answer the question "what can be in this Universe" though.

>>18960 answer it to whom? Humans? So far, that question is very much not answered.

>>18961 Answer to nothing, to which universe is the opposite. If there is nothing, there should be everything, and what we observe is a part of it. When you start answering what everything is, you run out of ways of adding more of the anything to the set of everything and have to invent more ways of how everything known interacts. For example, everything should obviously be somewhere, as only nothing is nowhere, which adds "space" to the set of everything. Evolved matter is one of the mechanisms to continue answering the question "what is everything", a really good one: it starts to create itself as soon as you have decent physics and then it invents technology and 50000 laptop models out of nothing but rocks, with rocks being made of elements, with elements being made of smaller things, and so on until you're left with nothing but the concept of everything and nothing. If humanity would go extinct, matter would naturally evolve into something else that would continue to add more items to the set of everything, because it can't be any other way.

I'm sitting at a table with people who have done 0 reading on subjects and say "lol it's not true" I say check it online, they read something and say "I was right, look" I point out the data is completely misleading, they check again and say I'm right but still sorta don't believe it. This ranging from demographic percentages to climate change, I'm not even trying to make a point but they just say things that are factually wrong all the time based on the perception TV gave them and a bunch of strawmen they based off TV personalities. They collectively decided they hate that Greta chick based on things that aren't even that outrageous and that means climate change doesn't exist. And there's no point arguing because if you are in the minority you are wrong even if you are factually right. Yes humanity is beyond saving.

>>18966 >And there's no point arguing because if you are in the minority you are wrong even if you are factually right. Willful ignorance is the basis of american politics. It's not even about following majority opinion, it's about following one of two political parties and taking everything that goes with it as a fundamental truth with no nuance besides how far you're willing to take it. The bright side is that after the next civil war things will settle down a bit. Humanity is "self destructive" but so adaptable it can't be destroyed by a single fuarrrkup.

>>18965 This is just mysticism full of unfounded statements and logical gaps. I will leave you with this... if you want to learn about real infinity, not this garbage, first learn that "the set of everything" is a logical contradiction, infinity cannot be contained in such a way.

>>18966 Asimov predicted this crap but don't worry, we'll hold hands and rediscover what is good in humanity when soykaf gets actually serious, and a couple countries disappear.

>>18970 >Willful ignorance is the basis of american politics. Sadly not just American, I'm not in the US.

>>18966 Well your proofs arent actual proofs of long-term irreversible global warming. Climate is goes in cycles, so we MIGHT be in a part of a cycle where it becomes hotter, but it doesnt mean it will always become hotter and hotter. Suppose we're on a Ferris wheel, going up, and you say - well we've been going up for last 2 minutes, I have proof, so that means eventually we will leave atmosphere. But no, we won't. Do you see now? You're misled by your le epic god - science and consensus of scientific community. But scientific community opinions are bought and sold, with enough manipulation and selective representation any point can be argued and supported by le epic science papers.

>>19017 "le bought out scientific community" at the very least tries to establish facts, not by our goodwill but by presenting and disseminating information in a way that is useful to those targeted. Of course there will be corruption, but you cannot naively discredit every single piece of work churned out thus far. Of course our climate is cycling, that is already established, who is to say we aren't deviating from values the cycle would naturally assume. "We can't ever be sure and all scientists are greedy fuarrrkers" is definitely an overly depressive worldview , we should at least attempt provocating positive change, but this mindset really only promotes suicidal ways of thinking, because I really can't see the point in living in a world like that.

>>19018 > but you cannot naively discredit every single piece of work churned out thus far. I agree, but how can we ever know which pieces of work are true and which aren't? I mean, there are leaks that confirm that both sides of the argument buy out scientific units, professors, organizations, institutes etc. to support their agenda. So then, if we can't find a true right position, approach and solution, instead of a scientific way, we should approach this in a spiritual and sensual way, trust your feelings and observations. And those are telling me that Greta is autistic useful idiot, and all this scepticism is only further amplified by the source of her funding, Soros. We know for a fact Soros is objectivily evil, and some of the projects he's funding are proven to be destructive (others are unproven, but still are probably destructive because he's a filthy rich Jew who conducts business internationally and transnationally), so we can safely assume that whatever Soros is supporting is wrong, bad and destructive. So, no climate change (in the way treehuggers, Greta et al are trying to paint it)

>>19019 If you are well informed enough to have a critical understanding and know how to access readilu available information on holdings, investmenys, an donations, u shouldnt be so easily sidetracked by retarded /pol/ socketpuppet jibberish. It's not hard ascertain the economic undercurrents guiding the politics pf climate change. What you are saying, that 90+% of all climate scientists have been paid off by.... whom? For what reason? Are u absolutely retarded? Yes. The contrary is obviously true. Every major media outlet (all owned by trad. Energy, manufacuturomg, and oil and gas) have been downplaying climate change since the late 90s. channers are such schmucks when it comes to thd world outside.

>>18971 It is full of gaps, pure bootstrap model of the universe (from literally the concept of nothingness, not from the preexisting concepts of space, time, particles and their unknown S-matrices) is not developed and maybe never would be, but I'm still a huge fan of the idea of creating everything out of nothing, as it answers the questions I care about. Bootstrapping the universe starts with nothing and the concept of "nothing" in your "set of everything" that is opposite to nothing, which leads to you having "somewhere", and from there you can try to derive physics that we observe by introducing interactions and eliminating inconsistent interactions until you're left with all the S-matrices you need and an observable subset of the universe to live in. That's enough of the philosophy to invent string theory and move on from vapid bullshit to real science, but the string theory and all that quantum chromodynamics does not try to answer the philosophical question "what the hell is actually going on and can life cease to exist here", which I actually care about, so I stay with vapid bullshit. By "set of everything" I don't mean the "universal set" from set theory, I mean the subjectively observable universe itself - set of events/objects/items/concepts/thoughts/... about the past and present that is filled with new elements every passing moment of time. It is an ongoing answer to the question "what is not nothing" that the universe can't stop answering, as having the answer would mean that we have a "universal set" on our hands, which is a contradiction. And we are one of the many mechanisms that continue doing the answering, because even if you bootstrap all the physics and get to the point of planets existing, rocks flying in space is still not "everything" and the universe should get more and more complex, by inventing life and laptops out of rocks and energy. And it is not possible for that to not happen, everything should happen somewhere somewhen, and all the inconsistent parts of the universe where impossible events happen and physics laws don't work properly are not a part of the observable universe... It is great to think about, so I keep answering.

>>19021 What does it even matter if they let the climate scientists speak about problems? All that results from it is that they can make a dollar by leveraging on people with environment concerns, just like starving children in Africa. Yes there are starving children in Africa and war and terrible crap, just because the only result from this is a marketing campaign so a few companies can line their pockets with charity doesn't mean the issue doesn't subsist. If anything it further minimizes the problem.

>>19023 >all that happens is they make a dollar how, exactly? Because I'm pretty sure most scientists make their money from being salaried scientists.

>>19024 The they is companies, not scientists. Scientists just need funding so they can give you data. You can look at the data and take your conclusions. Sure, the scientists get hired from both sides of the fence, but I wouldn't question the scientists' work. It's way easier to just cherrypick some data and claim whatever bullshit you need to get viral. If you really think that companies need to poison scientific data, as if anybody would give enough of a damn to fact check a headline, you are overestimating the vast majority of people. You can look at photo reportages too, there are brave people who go to soykafty places and document what's happening first-hand. Going by the most obvious conclusion is usually correct, there is clearly no elaborate fraud going on. The issues are real, the data is real, the documents are real. What's happening is simply that the masses don't care, companies don't care, and only a few Western people care, so the companies are marketing these things to those people because they want their disposable income.

>>19019 A point that I think is very relevant is that many companies buy scientists just so that they can force them to sign NDA and keep information form going public. One example was when BP paid off a lot of scientists who wanted to study the effects of environmental destruction, which turned into them being issued orders never to speak about their findings to anybody but BP. In a way, the research is out there, but how much megacorps and governments allow the public to know is still considered secret. There are forces that probably have a very good perspective about when the world will go to absolute soykaf, but the public will not know until it is too late. Defense journals often walk around the subject like "our nation needs _______ because the environment is going to be doing ______ by <year>" look up 10 and 15 year strategies. what if troops/generals were paying off scientists to justify more defense spending to support the military industrial complex by telling everyone that wars are going to happen because resources and muh environment... job security for the next 50 years.... spoopy

>>19028 ah, I see. Yeah living in California you see this type of "green liberalism" everywhere and it's really really annoying.

>>19099 Countries haven't even made an effort to ban planned obsolescence which is a fuarrrking huge problem that is never addressed. I am usually asked to fix stuff by people in the family. Lately I couldn't repair anything. All that stuff has absurd anti-tampering screws or is built in a way that cannot be disassembled without breaking. So if I want to not be a consumerist I will have to buy a weird screwdriver that costs more than the object I'm trying to fix, Or reproduce the complicated factory molded piece I am supposed to break to get inside. A lot of high quality stuff is exactly identical inside to the crappy stuff, it only looks better outside. This soykaf should be illegal. I have replaced more LED lightbulbs in the past year than I can count. Why are they lasting fuarrrk all? Why doesn't the world make agreements so countries are forbidden from producing terrible stuff designed to break and not be repairable? Why is it not forbidden to package literally two slices of salami in a plastic container that weighs more than the product it contains?

>>16638 Yes. And it won't stop until average people stop enabling selfish, greedy behavior by claiming it's "human nature". It's not human nature to be a selfish, uncaring, money grubbing cunt otherwise we wouldn't consider it a bad personality. Whenever someone says "well it can't change because it's human nature to want loads of money" it's either good people who are saying it dejectedly, or dickheads (the privileged kind who loves that life's unfair because it actually hasn't affected themselves yet) saying it because it describes themselves.

>>19030 No surprise there, seeing as the only job scientists get nowadays is to be a living appeal to authority. "A scientist said it because we paid them to, so it's obviously true!"

>>19124 "I have no idea what scientists do all day", the post

Anyone living in Australia? This soykaf looks really bad. That's how it starts - extreme weather, droughts, fire. https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Australia_like_a_furnace >A staggering 10 million hectares of land have been burned, at least 24 people have been killed and it has been reported that almost half a billion animals have perished. >According to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, 2019 was the country’s warmest year on record. I hope the same thing will happen in California, Texas etc. Sorry American Lains, but this is the only chance to convince your politicians to do something about the climate change. People have to see it, then they'll understand, maybe it won't be too late.

>>19196 lol avoiding ecological collapse is not an option. Anything we do now will be too little too late. We're all in a truck hurtling towards a cliff at 60 mph, the cliff is 100 feet away, and there's a brick strapped to the gas pedal. The doors and windows are sealed shut. Personally, I have no interest in sustaining this pile of soykaf that we call human civilization. Burn it down, I say, and let something else grow up. fiction sometimes tells us hard truths. This video is an example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CXRaTnKDXA

>>19197 >lol avoiding ecological collapse is not an option. We can't avoid +2 Celsius degrees, but we can try not killing everything more complicated than Bacteria and Archaea on surface. GMO plants could help reduce CO2 levels, we can stop burning fossil fuels, and that's basically it... Cloud engineering? I wonder how hard can humanity work under such a pressure. During the WW2 they made so many inventions, maybe this kind of crisis will force governments to invest in science more than ever. Okay, I must find a shelter.

>>19200 >but we can try not killing everything more complicated than Bacteria and Archaea on surface. that's not going to happen anyway. The worst case scenario is that most large land animals die out. Ants, for example, are in no danger whatsoever, even in a nuclear war scenario. >I wonder how hard can humanity work under such a pressure. During the WW2 they made so many inventions, maybe this kind of crisis will force governments to invest in science more than ever. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that governments exist only to sustain themselves. I believe that most governments are more likely to become totalitarian rather than produce technological solutions to climate change. >Okay, I must find a shelter. Don't do that lain. Just accept fate and enjoy life while it lasts.

>>19196 Australia's fires started because of the 300 people they arrested for arson. This has nothing to do with le climate change meme. Think about this for a second: >Guys, fires started all around a location that is extremely dry. The trees have very combustable sap. It must be climate change. Also, there's nothing that can be done about "climate change", even if its man made changes. The climate changes. That's what it does. Even if the US had some drastic change, the places that would, assuming it has this much of an impact, slow down climate change would be China and India.

>>19202 -why the fuarrrk is it so dry and hot? Why are there record-breaking temperatures almost every year? No soykaf, climate change. -why is there so much dead brush to burn? Because of the introduction of invasive species and the local extinction of large predators, among other reasons please, use more than 5 of your brain cells next time. >Also, there's nothing that can be done about "climate change", even if its man made changes. The climate changes. there's nothing that can be done *now*. And honestly, I'm getting really fuarrrking sick and tired of jackoffs who would have denied that climate change is a problem 20 years ago and thusly never would have done a single fuarrrking thing about it where there was the opportunity to do so, and then turn around and say "lol welp nothing to do now, also it's brown peoples' fault". That attitude is what got us into this mess in the first place.

>>19201 >Don't do that lain. Just accept fate and enjoy life while it lasts. I heard too many good people saying things like this and that's enough. I'll survive just to prove everyone was wrong.

>>19204 well, good luck with that. I recommend becoming fabulously wealthy, that's probably the most effective way to survive.

>>19202 >Even if the US had some drastic change, the places that would, assuming it has this much of an impact, slow down climate change would be China and India. Somehow the USA having only 330 million people manages to be worse than China or India. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GHG_per_capita_2000.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GHG_by_country_2000.svg >This has nothing to do with le climate change meme. >Also, there's nothing that can be done about "climate change", even if its man made changes. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/ If you're more than 10 years old, you should be able to see changes with your bare eyes. In my country, 15 years ago there were snow in winter, now there's none.

>>19203 So racism caused climate change, is your argument?

>>19208 no, assholes of all stripe caused climate change.

>>19207 where I am it was actually unusually cold this winter. But it's starting to warm up again already.

>>19207 >America produces the most This is "2000 - 2007" - This ignores the massive decrease in production that the US has seen yearly. >If you're more than 10 years old, you should be able to see changes with your bare eyes. Yes. Climates change. Polarity changes as well, which is one hypothesis of why this happened. On a side note, one cool thing about all this CO2 is the fact that the more we have, the better yield we get from our plants.

>>19212 >This ignores the massive decrease in production that the US has seen yearly. since 2007 it has not decreased all that much. You can look up more recent data -- it's not very different. >Yes. Climates change. Polarity changes as well, which is one hypothesis of why this happened. Polarity of what? I'm interested in hearing what zany theory you want to push, because I have *never* heard anybody coherently defend the idea that anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist. Even scientists who argue against reductions in oil use. >On a side note, one cool thing about all this CO2 is the fact that the more we have, the better yield we get from our plants sure, if you can water them.

>>19211 "global warming" is a misnomer, it refers to the warming of the polar regions, which creates a change effect where ice thins, but the cool area creates more surface ice (arctic) which reflects more light into the atmosphere. During the summer when the ice melts, the water warms which reduces thick ice, and makes the process worse. Cool air remains trapped in the polar region instead of being redirected by landmass to further equatorial regions. There are also some other odd effects based on temperature an elevation that create localized hot/cold spots, which means that instead of being temperate with seasons, you get crazy weather with very very cold times and very very hot times. Reminder that several countries are trying to expand into the poles because muh oil. China claims it is a "near arctic country" which means it has claim to arctic oil (there is no such thing as a near arctic country, it would be like France saying the same thing because Europe is close to the arctic).

What resources and money there are to be gathered will currently be exploited until there is no more exploiting to be done. The basic foundations of a hunter-gatherer society are present in the first world with both hunting and gathering being replaced with being a wagie. It's a primal inclination to be selfish and hoard all of the resources so that nobody else can have them except you and those you immediately care for. The difference is that humans have evolved to have some degree of morality. That morality makes us feel "good" about the things we do to improve the lives of others - even the ones which don't belong in our community. I really think that all of the resources that this planet will have to offer will be squeezed out just enough to the point where a massive amount of the population start dying and those in charge and those who have the power will have nothing to rule over anymore.

>>19265 >The difference is that humans have evolved to have some degree of morality. That morality makes us feel "good" about the things we do to improve the lives of others - even the ones which don't belong in our community. Bullshit. Most human morality is about projecting an image or obeying social rules. People who are genuinely empathetic are rare, often ridiculed and get their marrow sucked out by everyone around them.

>>19265 Your assertion about humans is based on the behaviors of humans that exist within a system that promotes certain behaviors. A fundamental reasoning of capitalism is that being selfish has a byproduct of increasing the quality of life of everyone. Naturally, people are selfish in a society that believes being selfish is good. All arguments in favor of humans being selfish use evidences that are as arbitrary and provable as arguments that humans aren't selfish. Apparently this book deals with the same idea, compromised objectivity within capitalism. I've been meaning to read it though I haven't yet, and yes I know the title is a little macbook-in-a-starbucks-y. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_Realism:_Is_There_No_Alternative%3F

Most of humanity wont let go of its current ways and is completely fuarrrked. I dont feel sorry for them, they are selfish, weak, stupid, soulless bastards that asked for it. The planet and all except for human life deserves better hence why i atleast try to be somewhat aware and treat the environment with the respect i can. Every piece of nature is worth fighting for imo and every small victory is a success. No matter how insignificant things may seem every organism is part of every other organism in some way. One way or another this world will change and its up to us to make it happen for the better. We have to throw everything we can at the system to push it over the edge.

So are Patagonia and NZ the only places with a future? The far north is going to fall straight into the jaws of oil barons, megacorps, and predatory governments looking to rape its resources once the ice is gone.

>>19361 Whether or not your country has the resources to adapt to climate change is the bigger issue. The US is one of the best countries in the world to be in right now, many other countries are already failing to cope with climate change but here we have a huge population of eggheads and a sufficiently large industrial base. Patagonia is fuarrrked, NZ less so but mostly because NZ is where rich people are going to hide.

>>19359 People didn't even trade this world for something worthwhile, they traded it for dumb soykaf nobody needs and muh burgers. At the ground of all the wasteful, horrible soykaf they do is always greed, envy and stupidity. >>19362 >The US is one of the best countries in the world to be in right now, many other countries are already failing to cope with climate change but here we have a huge population of eggheads and a sufficiently large industrial base. Ironic since you are the ones who caused all this.

>>19363 hey, Euros are to blame as well. But yeah one day this nation will get it's reckoning and I'll be there laughing.

>>19362 USA has too much partisanship tape covering all the solutions it needs to do well in the face of climate change. You want to fix the healthcare situation or replace crumbling infrastructure with something sustainable? fuarrrk off, that's democrat nonsense. You want to encourage local production for the purpose of resilience and discourage reliance on globalism? fuarrrk off, that's for republicans. Then there are a lot of problems that nobody wants to touch, like how zoning laws have ruined most towns for the sake of promoting growth in the automobile industry.

>>19366 Once people start starving I bet we'll see a shift in mindset.

>>19369 How will people starve? The more CO2 = More yield. There is a hypothesis, that has not been actually tested but somehow accepted into academia, that due to climate change, the extra CO2 won't actually matter because the hypothesis states the extra warmth will have a draw back on the yield - But even today, farmers are adding CO2 to their groups to increase the yield. And I can genuinely state that those places do seem to be a lot warmer than they generally were 20-25 years ago. (yes, yes. Climate != weather.) I'm not saying we should beg for more CO2, of course. But your statement is, at best, reductive and ignoring how plants work or, at worst, uneducated about how any of it works and you are simply regurgitating some hearsay. Either way, you should definitely look into it. Because the theory itself has some validity to it, it's just there aren't many tests done on the matter.

>>19737 more CO2 is not the only effect of climate change. Generally we can expect weather to stop following predictable patterns that it has in the past, and any farmer will tell you that predictable weather is absolutely vital for growing crops. That, and the general decline of ecosystem health means that farmers need to do eco-engineering to get a good crop, which is quite difficult if you're not in a greenhouse. Genetic engineering may help with these problems, but Monsanto is not exactly an ethical company. Climate change is also not the only problem. Water and land resources are abysmally managed in a lot of places. I wouldn't be surprised if there was another Dust Bowl at some point.

>>19374 meant to link >>19373 would be nice if there was a way to auto-quote without javascript.

>>19373 >The more CO2 = More yield. You're forgetting about other growth factors, that is temperature and water. Plants can't use the extra CO2, if it's too hot. There's also soil degradation caused by temperature. >There is a hypothesis, that has not been actually tested but somehow accepted into academia It couldn't be accepted by academia, if it hasn't been tested, because doing such a thing is unscientific. >A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis What you talk about is temporarily happening in the moderate climate zone, but if it gets drier there, the effect won't last. And the problem is other parts of the world are going to stop producing food, because of desertification - see Australia, Sahel, California, Arizona.

If you think the most powerful people on earth won't manhattan project a way to survive on a ruined planet by creating closed enviromental domes then you're crazy. The ultra-wealthy could survive our planet being ejected from solar system so long as we didn't collide into anything on the way out. They would live there, deep in the underground, with their indentured slaves. Humanity will not go extinct. You will.

>>19021 > channers are such schmucks when it comes to thd world outside. yeah all of us are schmucks, luckily there's an enlightened (You) who is here to save all of us. the world and the society WILL NOT adapt for you and your cult-like insane ramblings, deal with it.

>>19389 In a time of crisis where the majority of the population will die or stave, money won't protect you from an angry mob.

>>19392 >I'm not in a cult, your're in a cult!

>>19393 your mom, an angry mob.

>>16638 Humanity is not fuarrrked, but people will not be able to lead these comfortable lives forever if nothing is done about the things you mentioned. >May just be wishful thinking on my part tho. You will not be able to save the world on your own, but you can do your part in keeping it from getting worse. If you care about climate change, poverty or megacorp dominance, do something about it. Buy sustainable products, donate food to a food bank, support other companies and casually mention these things to your friends and family when appropriate. You don't have to become a screaming activist to achieve results. If everybody did something, solving those problems would be much easier. But yeah, although all bits might count, it may not be enough in the end. If you care at all though, you should still try to take some sort of action. At the very least you will have a clean conscience when the world ends eh?

>>19401 >come on guys, we just need to consume slightly differently :)

Human beings are literally a cancer on this planet. You can see by the fact that the entirety of human concerns about these issues are driven by the possibility that it will backfire or have consequences sooner or later. It's never just questioning if it's right or wrong to do it in the first place. If you base your actions on what is right or wrong to you instead of practical soykaf, you are ridiculed. Morals and ethics, which are the things that separate our behavior from animal behavior, have always been seen as an obstacle, but with the advent of mass media they became even worse: just a marketing tool. So you can have your cake and eat it too, then proudly soykaf where you just ate because you were a dumb fuarrrking monkey all along.

>>19473 You seem like the type of person who would be interested in "deep ecology"

>>19475 >deep ecology Very noble. But it doesn't make sense to hope for change in human behavior, because human behavior is immutable. You can build rules and expectations on human beings, yes, so they may be shamed by their society when they fail to uphold them, but you cannot expect ethics to take root because ethics are unconditional. You can teach a monkey to eat with a fork by conditioning, but it'll never really care about table manners. And just the same, humans are fundamentally devoid of ethics, so it's impossible to expect anything but exploitation and entitlement from them. What people call "ethics" in human society, like not raping or murdering other people, does not work on ethical grounds. It's always been fear toward God, or the law, or public shame, that kept people's evil nature at bay. Most of the civilized humans in our society would rape and murder like savages if the social constructs upholding the rules failed. You can see this happen in wars, where people do the most horrible things to those who fall outside of the rules' jurisdiction. Look at the Milgram experiment. The entirety of human ethics is just conditioning and enforcement of authority, and at best it will result in a broken, dysfunctional monkey rather than a monkey who learned ethics. The true nature of man is evil and as long as humans roam the world, they'll only spread evil while wearing a mask of civility. I can't advocate for authoritarianism because it can only enforced by other human beings and will therefore become an instrument of evil. Even if we managed to create autonomous AIs and designed them as our masters, the only way they might be able to contain humanity's evil is by force. Are a bunch of broken humans, controlled in every way, free to be human? Does that undo the evil in them? I think all one can do is not reproduce. It's not even worth it to do anything for the environment during your lifetime, you are a giant bipedal world-eating locust, might as well act like one.

>>19402 That wasn't my point at all, as we need to thoroughly change the way we live. Most people are not willing to ditch their consumer lifestyle however, so asking them to go to the 'extreme' would result in resistance and zero gain. But if millions of people made some effort, these big problems would be easier to solve. Though in the end it wouldn't be an actual solution, as you said.

If we keep going at this rate we're probably fuarrrked. All of these endocrine disrupters being pumped into the environment are turning half the men on the planet into useless, effete perverts. Is it on purpose?

Playing devil's advocate here. What if our purpose, rather than to self sustain in unchanging perpetuity, is instead - like the stars - to recklessly burn through our fuel to the last drop in the hopes of creating something greater; even if, in the end, it means our own destruction? Why are we so obsessed with conservation in the first place? Is it rooted in our fear of death? The world is beautiful, but to try and keep it frozen in time, unchanging, is impossible. Destruction for the sake of enriching the ephemeral lives of the elite is a waste, but in the pursuit of knowledge, technological advancement, or something else? Looking at it from a universal scale, wouldn't it be boring for this little pocket of life to simply repeat the same cycles over and over until the star sustaining us dies? Is our answer to the universe, after all this time, "sorry, it was all a waste"? Billions of years to get the point of sentience, the point that we can finally look back on it all, and that's it? That's all we've got? The chick can't leave its shell without first destroying it. Is the Earth, as it is, perfect? Are we really sinning by changing it? Or is it our destiny to do so? Just a thought - one that couldn't be shared outside my limited circle without adding a bit more carbon to the atmosphere, unfortunately.

>>19483 >Why are we so obsessed with conservation in the first place? Is it rooted in our fear of death? The world is beautiful, but to try and keep it frozen in time, unchanging, is impossible. Destruction for the sake of enriching the ephemeral lives of the elite is a waste, but in the pursuit of knowledge, technological advancement, or something else? I think that's the problem: the way we're going, we're not using up all our resources in that direction. We're using it to do stupid soykaf. The whole world right now is organized around various entities, some human and some nonhuman, trying to profit and nothing else. That doesn't seem like a very sensible way to run a society to me. "Conservation" I think means something like planning ahead, believing that there will be people after us and we must leave them something good. As a society, I think we forgot that. We lost all collective responsibility. The world is ruled by a short news cycle, a short election cycle, and a short economic cycle. If we were playing the long game, maybe something great could come of global society. As it is, I think the best metaphor would be an algae bloom: a pointless, temporary exponential growth that accomplishes nothing and leaves death and desctruction in its wake.

These are big problems and I have a small brain but I guess I have a few ideas about how a fix would play out. Its odd cause as im about to share this I notice that almost all of the time I post here im posting something I can't be convinced is wrong, and its not that im (exceptionally) stubborn I just havent been sharing anything im willing to change my mind on so im excited to hear about why im wrong or right actually. Anyways I do think as much as so many eco fascists and the like want to say just let people die off or fuarrrk people put the environment first, I pretty firmly believe even if that was the solution there is no way humanity would collectively implement that unless humanity in whole or majority was psychologically well. So even though the environment and earth is so much bigger than us, I think we have to put people first as ultimately we are the ones capable of fixing the mess possibly. I think we should as a whole be investing way more into psychology and therapy, as well as social services. This can get scary because it becomes blurry then whether we are making people feel more secure, and in control mentally or just brainwashing them into what is currently seen as better in society. Also I know the right often touts the whole "Life and liberty not life and liberty + a house, internet and a phone XD" but the more you elevate the basic standard of living the more people can focus beyond whats in front of them. Some still will but I believe on average you will see more people able to think into the future and past beyond their lifetime. Likewise if we can stop dismissing psychology as just pseudoscience nonsense (which I do think its a pseudoscience but I think there is nothing else the study of internal human experience and workings could be) we can heal cycles of trauma and violence that might elevate people to think beyond themselves, and with more empathy. This second idea is more just an idea about the future not a solution, and its not unique to me at all, but I often wonder if we are developing into sort of a hivemind or colony. It always seemed to me we were somewhere inbetween, and I also often wonder if thats the source of so much ideaological conflict. People who understand themselves as part of a whole versus people who understand themselves as an individual. I think to the latter group, a lot of the implementation behind my former "solution" would feel like brainwashing because in essence it is kind of. If a chunk of humanity is moving torwards a common understanding of mental well being, good and bad, and you go against that, of course you are seen as an enemy and outcast. Its not really that its some sort of scheme or conspiracy against you, but it feels like that to the person who puts their individuality first. It is like (on a much smaller simplified and extreme scale) its as if there was two people and one decided it must murder the other one. And then when the other one defends itself the person attempting the murder yells that the victim is conspiring against him. I kind of got sidetracked but il leave it at that. One last thing is that as ive gotten older ive moved from being individual focused to still individual focused but above that with a larger understanding of myself as simply part of the human machine. Willing to give up things I used to feel entitled to easily if I know it is a drain on the whole. Yet I know people who are the exact opposite, and even think that those preaching communism, socialism, etc. will "grow out of it". I wonder why.

>>19493 I was agreeing with you until you started to soykaf on individuality. Why should I care about the collective and especially about the future of people who aren't born yet? It just doesn't matter to me.

>>19486 >>19483 >>19476 For fictional examples in how this goes down, I think a good example is Margaret Atwoods Maddadam trilogy, because it shows how technology, rather than improving the quality of life and guiding mankind to overcome its limitations on this world has been perverted to ensuring maximizing profit by enabling degeneracy on a massive scale. For a more entertaining look, the movie idiocracy does a good job- scientist were less concerned with solving problems and more concerned with prolonging erections. Even if mankind poured resources into technological advancements to go into the stars and build our civilization into an interstellar species, we would still probably end up falling to the point to where countries and companies would end up starting wars or conflict just so they can get materials and impoverished workforces to cheaply produce the next iphone or smart device of the year. The reason that many science fiction books that involve fighting extraterrestrials focus so little on consumerism is because the prevailing idea is that resources need to be allocated to be better as a group, instead of being allocated to living comfy degenerate lives. Examples of this in history include the world wars and the cold war, because resources were pooled to try to build bigger and better equipment than the "enemy". I guess if we approached the environment as our common "enemy" we could overcome these obstacles, but at what cost to mankind? it could go well, and we could push mankind off into the universe to unknown glory - or we could consume our last drop of water and die as a species having never gotten farther away than a few barren planets in our solar system. > I think we should as a whole be investing way more into psychology and therapy, as well as social services. This can get scary because it becomes blurry then whether we are making people feel more secure, and in control mentally or just brainwashing them into what is currently seen as better in society. The entire field of psychology is just a bunch of theory, and conditioning to get people to conform to a common belief. If being self sufficient was taught, and people were encouraged to excel for themselves, then many problems would disappear overnight. Remember that the medical field is still just an industry, and solving problems only makes people not become return customers. I see difference between psychological treatment, which is generally teaching people stress management and coping or medicating, and actually motivating people to overcome their problems for themselves by being independent thinkers. >but I often wonder if we are developing into sort of a hivemind or colony. It always seemed to me we were somewhere inbetween, and I also often wonder if thats the source of so much ideaological conflict. Societies have often fed into this idea by means of groupthink phenomenon. If you are not part of the group, you become an outsider. That idea pushes people to conform since they crave social attention. I do also draw a distinction between a free thinker, and a narcissistic individual. One thinks only for himself at the expense of others, but the other can make himself better for the sake of mankind to gain social validation via his superiority as one path. There are also differences in how individuals are seen in eastern and western societies, which is why there is inherent conflict in the human condition that differs between asians and westerners. I think that advertisers and data companies like facebook and google are also the source of these types of problems, because their strategies produce self consuming individuals. Once people become mentally closed loops, they cannot have a gain to themselves, and as a matter of the laws of nature, they can only destroy themselves. Recommended advertising forces people into a mindset that only encourages targeted consumption and thereby more advertising that conditions people into their own downward consumer cycle. Discussion topics online often fall under a similar pattern especially when the only area of discussion is like minded individuals like twitter. It really concerns me that the last bastion of free speech is confined to anime themed image boards of all places. If only there were public forums where people could discuss things without being crazy or shunned for thinking differently. it's all so tiresome

>>19483 The comparison to stars isn't very apt, as humanity isn't a single entity. I think there's a fair share of people out there who want to conserve the Earth because they don't want to saddle their children with the cost of the comfortable lives they lived. Burning up all resources won't delete the earth or humanity, it will just make things terrible for its descendants. I also think that unsustainable exploitation of resources isn't required for progress to occur. It might be faster that way, but I'd wager it's not the only path. We can reach our potential just fine without ruining the planet. Maybe I'm reading your post wrong, but it sounds like you would like to see people leaving earth in the future. In that case, it would be smart to develop sustainable technology further as well, because you're not going to find many fossil fuels beyond earth. Fusion shouldn't be too far away now though and hydrogen is also getting more attention as of late. A shame you can't share this thought with your friends, because why are they supporters of something if they cannot defend it?

>>19498 if you don't care then you don't care, but I think your view is stupid and what got us into this mess. Jackasses who didn't care about future people or collective well-being made the world this way. There's a big difference between individuality and self-centeredness. You can be collective-oriented but preserve individuality, there is no contradiction. The "individualism" of modern American culture is an advertising strategy. >>19493 I think you're basically talking about starting a religion. Unfortunately I've often though that religion might be one of the only ways out of this mess... don't pollute, because if you do you'll anger the gods and get divine punishment. With the expected loss of scientific knowledge in the coming dark ages, that might be one of the only ways to make sure people don't fuarrrk up again. Religion is a double-edged sword... it can serve the role of providing social unity, and really help people to live better lives, at the expense of also often being perverted into a form of social control. If it's to be a tool for furthering social good, it must be a tool that is very considerately used. Even Buddhism has been used to justify wars. >>>/hum/20473 I know that feel lain. I've told myself that as long as I still have a noble purpose that I have even the slightest chance of accomplishing, I won't kill myself. I guess I'm just an optimistic person at heart, I don't think the moment to give up is anywhere near yet. >>19506 science fiction used to be so optimistic. They used to think that humanity would evolve past this, they used to genuinely believe the future would be some kind of ideal world, they weren't afraid to wonder what that ideal world looked like. It's like people who thought WW1 would be the last war ever, I so wish they were right.

>>19521 I meant to post in the vent thread but I couldn't delete. I have no hope that things will get anything but worse for me, the world, the things I love, and there's nothing I can do. I think the world and everything in it is already dead, it's undead, a zombie.

>>19521 I think religion could fix the USA. Before the industrial revolution, the US had the transcendentalist movement that encouraged preservation of nature and rejection of materialism in favor of self sufficienct living. It was industrialization that seriously damaged the spirit of the American people and made the USA the fat mess it is today. One of the big hurdles in the way of the USA embracing environmentalism is how the atheistic urbanite class has appropriated it as "their thing" and coupled it with other hyperpartisan issues like banning civilian gun ownership and opening borders. If Americans saw environmentalism as part of preserving the beauty of God's creation it would allow serious progress on the green front. And if the American churches adopted this, they would add it to the things they peddle in developing countries, which I think would be globally significant (American churches have a lot of power over developing nations and their people). Of course, this is all just optimism on my part.

>>19523 The West's stance on world issues is purely emotional because capitalism couldn't support these thoughts any other way. People like to think they're ethical, progressive, environmentalist, but they don't act as such. Everything is fake thanks to social media, so it doesn't make any difference if you actually walk the talk.

>>16638 >Overpopulation the root cause of everything

I have no hope in the future. The rich have already given up and are pulling the biggest exit scam in human history. You should be spending every waking moment trying to move to Alaska, Yukon, New Zealand, Siberia, or Patagonia if you know what's good for you. Start hoarding guns, ammo, water, and food once you get there. https://medium.com/@cache_86525/the-future-is-grim-27ca6f7ab07b Alternatively, you can do what I'm doing and just coast through life waiting for the world to end. I gave up on self improvement, I just spend public assistance on unhealthy food and consume media all day. I don't care enough about being alive to put the effort into becoming one of the few survivors. Once benefits get cut I'm going to kill myself.

>>20122 This is a very easy solution. It's very appealing because it allows this nihilistic approach, which also can let people off the hook for blatant racism too. We have enough land, we have enough food right now, we can afford to have billions of people living on this planet. We can't afford to have billions of Americans eating burgers everyday having 4 times the carbon footprint to that of other countries. It would be very easy for humans to live in a sustainable way, and to keep a planet peaceful and inhabitable, however because capitalism, endless money and resources get directed to phones, social media, garbage clothes. Overpopulation is usually targeted towards Africa/Asia, who's having more of an impact, an Asian rice farmer who goes to town once a week to buy supplies or a billionaire? The world is no where near overpopulated yet. It Is however overpopulated with the rich who consume, and sell the poor the means to destroy the planet, then sell them 'sustainable' versions again.

>>21764 I was just about to post this article. Man, we are about to enter some fuсked up, Mad Max, dark age, cyberpunk, concentration camp shıt era. I genuinely need to start preparing a backup plan in the province and learn to grow crops.

>>21764 What I worked for as my endgame for happiness in this society didn't pay off, so I've got no reason to live in this world. I'm not scared of the Coronavirus. I am following the rules, practicing social distancing, but I don't really care if this reaches me or not. I'm only concerned for my cat, since I have taken a vow to protect her when I brought her home. So if I die she'll be alone and nobody will take her. I'm very worried about that. All life is suffering, only a bare universe would be empty of it. The poor suffer because they're not rich, the rich suffer because their riches rule their lives. Nature is a brutal engine that has no compassion for the beauty it creates. What difference does it make to live less, if suffering is inherent to existence? What difference does it make if we live in a utopia or a barren landscape if living in comfort only makes us addicted and numb?

The Earth will still stand, but humanity will fall from it's own selfishness, stupidity and greed.

Global Warming isnt going to be a thing now, what with all the air and road traffic steeply dropped. Feels like the air is cleaner already.

>>23429 >all the air and road traffic steeply dropped. And how long is that going to last? A month? Half-a-year? Sooner or later we're right back on track, and we'll keep going on as if nothing had happened. And even if we wouldn't, we've still got roughly 70% of world's biomass worth of cattle to pump methane for decades to come, and in addition to that there's still carbon in the atmosphere to last us for a hundred years or so. We're royally fuarrrked either way.

At this point I believe that some kind of major civilizational collapse that will substantially reduce population numbers is inevitable, simply because of the overwhelming number of problems coming to a head simultaneously. Any single one could be fixed, but not all at once. We can hope that the survivors will learn from the mistakes of the past. We cynically assume that people never do, but that's not really true - when things get truly catastrophic, it sticks with us. It'll be for the best when it happens, but the level of suffering will be staggering. The planet will survive, and so will our species, but the scale of what will be lost in cultural, technological and human terms is hard to imagine now. Ultimately, I'm an optimist, and I think it will be an important step in our development to something greater. The people who will make it through will be the ones who have the ability to set their goals higher than hedonistic consumption and can stoically endure pain and deprivation for a better future. The only scenario where all this is somewhat avoided that I can envision right now is either an authoritarian West or China deciding to make a clean cut, radically prioritizing their own group's interests over everybody else's, brutally cracking down on the rest of the world and capturing as many resources as they can to retain some semblance of a living standard. I can see China trying this, I doubt that the West has the balls anymore. It's become too castrated to make radical decisions.

>>23440 > Sooner or later we're right back on track, and we'll keep going on as if nothing had happened. Actually it will be worse for a while. Businesses will double their efforts to catch up which means factory and transport emissions will be worse than before. People will be rescheduling cancelled vacations and so on.