this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2025
405 points (93.4% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

13668 readers
624 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article

--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I can't wait until they makes these no cost, low-maintenance, and self-replacing. Oh man, just think of how easy it would be to fix our climate issues!

(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Only need half a million of them to keep up with current emissions.

For comparison, there are far fewer power plants that release co2. Based on some rough estimates I foind, there are fewer than 10,000 in total plants, most have more than one generator.

And those turn a profit, no one is going to fund half a million capture plants. Building out more solar and wind is insanely more financially prudent. N.

Over building with nuclear power with its massive capital costs makes far more sense than these things.

These solutions always remind of this scene from Futurma.

[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 week ago

Honestly, my staunch conservationists viewpoints aside, tech just isn't as cheap or as efficient (holistically) as biological systems, or simply not destroying these systems.

All solutions like this do are to highlight my point, and the inherent value ecosystems have. However since plants don't make the line go up no one gives a shit or wants to look at the writing on the wall

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 26 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Trees do not permenantly sequester carbon, they act as a reservoir. If we cover the entire land area of the earth in amazon rainforest, it'll sequester like 150 years worth of our carbon emissions. After that, there would be no more land left to plant trees on, and we would be back to where we are now. The only solution is to simultaneously stop bringing carbon from outside the carbon cycle into the carbon cycle, and also remove the carbon that we've already brought in.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why does this look like someone threw it together in Minecraft

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 16 points 1 week ago

It would probably take decades to offset its own carbon footprint, let alone making it negative. And then it would need to actually be significant.
Just plant trees and restore carbon sinks you fucking techno fascists.

[–] Arancello@aussie.zone 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

so burning fossil fuels to take Carbon dioxide out of atmosphere? hmmm

[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 week ago

We just need to put solar pannels on them!!!

I'm not a huge fan of this approach.

[–] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Now reunite Mythbusters and stack like 30 seconds of freeway traffic worth of cars facing it. Go.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

My first act as president would be to create a cabinet-level Department of Myth Busting, headed by Adam savage and headquartered at the James Randi Laboratories.

[–] karashta@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 week ago

It can't even look cool. God this timeline sucks.

[–] MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Forests: are we a joke to you?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TheWeirdestCunt@lemmy.today 7 points 1 week ago (5 children)

everyone seems to be jumping on how shit of an idea this is and that we just need more trees, but the point of this is that they can directly sequester the carbon back into the ground. Yes you can plant a lot of trees but when those trees die and rot away the carbon just ends up straight back in the atmosphere, you need to actually bury it to stop it re-entering the atmosphere again.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] sefra1@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 week ago

Nice, now the techbros can finally achieve their lifelong dream of paving all the forests and selling tickets for the tree museums.

After that they can plant trees on Mars.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

They put all the trees in a tree museum.

[–] Black@lemmy.today 5 points 1 week ago

If they can make like the size of 100-floor building, maybe there will be some differences rather than using trees that only occupied horizontal plane.

[–] TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What would work better... Trees? Or a machine consisting of rare earth metals which need to be mined and processed and are only partially recyclable... A tree outlives a machine. Replacing old machines with new ones is good for the economy, so yeah, let's do that! Wait, what was our goal exactly?

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

If trees did their god damned jobs, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place

[–] TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago

Those lazy ass trees just standing thur.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›