Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Ignorantly believing there will be minimal consequences to our unplanned terraform is why we are in this mess. The problem is not simply "climate change". Ecological collapse is a much larger concern. We are significantly altering the chemistry of the entire biosphere; the atmosphere, land and ocean with literally thousands of chemical compounds. We have killed off ~70% of the natural worlds macroscopic organisms over the last 50-100 years, and are already at the point where 95+% of all animal biomass is our livestock. We consider species "not endangered" if there are like 10k of them. Does 10k humans isolated to one geography sound like a healthy, extinction-resistant population?
It's not gonna be 2.7c by 2100. It will be 3-4c. We were told we wouldn't hit 1.5c until ~2035 and we're already there — as I've believed for over a decade, because I actually listen to scientists instead of fossil-fuel-operated political orgs like the IPCC — and we're on track to blow past 2c before 2050. ~25% of all Co2 ever emitted was in the last ~15 years, and another ~25% will be emitted in the next ~15. We can't predict compounding feedback loops we know little about, or any of the many unknown unknowns that are guaranteed to exist.
I'm not saying the world will definitely be a "Mad Max inferno of devastation and death" — the entire natural world has already been through the majority phase of "devastation and death" — but everyone living today would almost certainly consider 2100 to be a dystopia.
Whoever said the consequences would be "minimal?" I'm saying they won't be apocalyptic. It's not the literal end of the world, as so many people are fretting about. People are deciding not to have children because they think humanity's going to go extinct in a generation or two.
Well there you go, then.
People are not having kids because they believe their children will be worse off than they are; that persistent inflation, natural disasters, famine, resource wars, actual wars, austerity, mass migrations, fascism/feudalism are all but guaranteed for a majority of humanity over the next century.
Barely anyone believes or cares about us going completely extinct.