Submitted by sector3011 t3_ylkflq in Futurology
shirk-work t1_iuz8rmv wrote
Between this and the permafrost I think we're seriously underestimating the situation. It's more like a climate apocalypse.
BrownThunderMK t1_iuzo4os wrote
We also lost 70% of the world's animal population since 1970. Capitalism is actively destroying the planet, at this rate we're giving the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs a run for its money.
shirk-work t1_iuzpqub wrote
We won't be the first organism to cause a mass extinction but we will be the first "intelligent life". The first photosynthesizing life poisoned the atmosphere with oxygen and nearly killed everything.
f1del1us t1_iuzvd8l wrote
What will be interesting will be the life that evolves to deal with the mess we leave behind (looking at you, plastic)…
MeisterLogi t1_iv0rbpd wrote
>"Plastic is not natural, it is made, this proves that their must have been intelligent life before the Sixth Mass Extinction Event."
>"Plastic is natural! It's absolutely everywhere. And if you don't understand where it comes from, maybe that was just Gods plan. And if life was so intelligent, where are they? They would have noticed the rising carbon levels and taken action. It's absolutely preposterous to say we are not the first intelligence on this planet."
0b_101010 t1_iv0xgqa wrote
LOL. This would actually be a great prompt for a novel.
KilledByVen t1_iv55bk8 wrote
Just wait for them to rediscover Asbestos
HeartoftheHive t1_iuzvqdx wrote
There are already plastic eating microbes.
Buddahrific t1_iv1160c wrote
Imo the real problem for the far future is when the plastic-dependent life uses up all the plastic we're leaving without any way to make more. We could be creating not one but two extinction events.
Makes me wonder what kind of evidence of this all will be left in millions of years. If there's anything that eventually digs up our fossils, will they know what caused the current extinction event? Would they be able to figure out a peak plastic extinction?
EcoEchos t1_iv0td3k wrote
And yet, most people are perfectly happy financing the industries who are responsible for the mass extinctions of wildlife we are seeing in nature. Most people are financing these industries several times a day.
> “A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions."
[deleted] t1_iv0x1ix wrote
[deleted]
EcoEchos t1_iv1wfpl wrote
This suggestion is great, because it literally requires everyone to do absolutely nothing, thus resulting in zero change. All while they pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves.
joleme t1_iv16osf wrote
Let's hypothetically say everyone stopped consuming meat and dairy.
Do you (or anyone else) really think that the people that owns that land who are now going to be 100% broke because their livelihood has been taken away are going to just say "oh, I'll just start planting trees that will make me no money"?
Do you expect that the government would pay the going rate for the land? Should they just use eminent domain if the owners don't want to sell?
Throwing around "solutions" with no real way to implement them is pretty pointless. This isn't even touching on the fact that the elite with $$$$$$ rule the world. They've peddled misinformation for decades and decades. They got world governments wrapped around their fingers.
We can all do our little bits to try and help (I do, but it's a drop in the bucket) but unless the billionaires stop polluting we're fucked.
Kemyst t1_iv2x6yk wrote
We’re fucked. Billionaires become billionaires by being greedy and greedy people don’t give a fuck about anything outside their bubble. It’s coming, the only question is when.
EcoEchos t1_iv1w93q wrote
Ah, yes, the typical "my actions do not matter" response in the face of simple information. 🙄
Keep deluding yourself that it's OK to finance ecological destruction across the globe just for your temporary moment of pleasure. 👍
Again, these industries exist only to feed consumers, but you are so eager to ignore that fact, alongside the long list of variables that you ignored in your comment. Your comment literally only focuses on land use and ignores how animal agriculture is just raping and pillaging our planet across tons of other variables.
Keep financing these industries to destroy our planet then put on your shocked pikachu face when you see articles like the one OP posted. 🙄
Odeeum t1_iv0qugz wrote
"But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of wealth for shareholders"
EcoEchos t1_iv0tnf0 wrote
The shareholders are not the only ones responsible for the mass extinctions of wildlife we are seeing.
Animal agriculture is responsible for the mass extinctions we are facing and those industries would not be possible without their consumers financing them for it. These industries aren't digging up the bones of our planet just for fun, they do it for your dollars.
The real culprits are all of the people who are continuing to eat meat and animal products, since they are financing these industries to destroy our planet, several times a day.
edit: Yep, keep downvoting as if it changes the truth.
bluesquare2543 t1_iv2j82b wrote
It’s cognitive dissonance. The shareholder observation is just as truthful as the fact that the animal agriculture industry is raping animals and our planet.
Gemini884 t1_iv21wr6 wrote
“In the last 50 years, Earth has lost 68% of wildlife, all thanks to us humans” (India Times)
“Humanity has wiped out 60% of animal populations since 1970, report finds” (The Guardian)
“We’ve lost 60% of wildlife in less than 50 years” (World Economic Forum)
These are just three of many headlines covering the Living Planet Index. But they are all wrong. They are based on a misunderstanding of what the Living Planet Index shows.
https://ourworldindata.org/living-planet-index-decline - explainer article from ourworldindata
"Recent analyses have reported catastrophic global declines in vertebrate populations. However, the distillation of many trends into a global mean index obscures the variation that can inform conservation measures and can be sensitive to analytical decisions. For example, previous analyses have estimated a mean vertebrate decline of more than 50% since 1970 (Living Planet Index).Here we show, however, that this estimate is driven by less than 3% of vertebrate populations; if these extremely declining populations are excluded, the global trend switches to an increase. The sensitivity of global mean trends to outliers suggests that more informative indices are needed. We propose an alternative approach, which identifies clusters of extreme decline (or increase) that differ statistically from the majority of population trends.We show that, of taxonomic–geographic systems in the Living Planet Index, 16 systems contain clusters of extreme decline (comprising around 1% of populations; these extreme declines occur disproportionately in larger animals) and 7 contain extreme increases (around 0.4% of populations). The remaining 98.6% of populations across all systems showed no mean global trend."
ShelSilverstain t1_iuzsaon wrote
There's too many people. If we didn't even eat food or use fossil fuels, our impact on other species is nothing but selfish
cutekitty1029 t1_iv051iu wrote
It's really lazy and harmful to just say "there's too many people" as though some poor subsistence farmer in the global south has the same culpability as a gas guzzling westerner with two cars and a meat based diet.
There are too many hyperconsumers in the west. That's the primary issue and driver of emissions and the thing we need to stop immediately.
masala_mayhem t1_iv07cmk wrote
Thank you @cutekitty1029 for saying that. Have had an opportunity to travel across villages in rural India, sri lanka, Bangladesh and their impact on the planet is absolutely negligible when compared to the impact of the average Redditor.
Also, there are far too many hyper consumers everywhere - and now Manila and Mumbai want the same level of consumption as Manchester and Memphis. We need to cut down consumption
ShelSilverstain t1_iv1qefb wrote
So those humble Indians don't use land? They take up no space?
Then why are they killing so many elephants???
Artanthos t1_iv0xh0c wrote
Any species will expand to the destruction of its environment without natural controls.
Humans are no exception.
ImJustSo t1_iv0xq4z wrote
Well, I'd like to point out the culpability of corporations as well...
Unchecked and unregulated corporations. They're "producers" of carnage and consumers of the planet to feed their profits. Nestle? Enron? Gazprom?
Corporations (and entire industries) give those "hyperconsumers" the means to consume their product.
The oil/auto industry murdered early public transportation and early EVs. If these leaches on society hadn't set up shop and pillaged the planet, then the United States would have passenger trains and bus access to every inch of the country without anymore impact than your neighbor and his neighbor and hers.
What about Nestle? Bottling water and selling it back to the people the steal it out from under?
I don't think people should be driving around real life Tonka trucks to their 9-5 jobs, but I don't think they should even exist in the first place. It's murder.
ShelSilverstain t1_iv1qihu wrote
How are they forcing us to take up so much space???
TarantinoFan23 t1_iv0ez58 wrote
How about sports? Athletes should just be farmers.
Mediocremon t1_iv0qn9a wrote
Make them play football with hoes strapped to their back, and move the field every day.
ImJustSo t1_iv0ycex wrote
Push plows are a thing. Football sleds are also a thing. I feel that they're just a few nuts and bolts away from being a great way for rural football teams to help out their farming communities.
Mediocremon t1_iv0yxgv wrote
We're solving world issues one goofy sport at a time.
ImJustSo t1_iv10lrn wrote
Right to repair? Who needs tractors when you've got teenagers that want a state championship?
Mediocremon t1_iv11ds1 wrote
The fight for the "right to repair" suddenly becomes "healthcare for all" to fix the broken child labourers
thewordthewho t1_iuztovm wrote
1970 3.7B people, 2022 8B, 2030 predicted just shy of 10.
ShelSilverstain t1_iv1q1vj wrote
Pretty amazing that we can't put quality of life over quantity
ISiupick t1_iuzuq4t wrote
Im approaching 30 and recently spoke with my parents about having kids. Sure, they want grandkids, but Im not too comfortable putting a new life on Earth if we're speeding head on towards self-anihilation through climate change.
Maybe it's for the better. We truly don't deserve this planet.
shirk-work t1_iuzv5ie wrote
I mean I don't think humanity is going to go extinct but I do believe the population will drop by 2 or 3 billion mainly in poor areas and those most deeply affected by climate change. If your living in a wealthy county with a decent climate or even a climate that may become more arable it'll be on par with the great depression for instance. If your in a second or third world country already prone to droughts or floods then yeah then maybe it isn't as great of an idea. If you're highly educated, have good finances your the person we most want to have children but is simultaneously the least likely.
ISiupick t1_iuzvtmn wrote
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about extinction. Those 2-3 bln climate refugees you mentioned - they're not going to just keel over and die. They'll have to go somewhere and we're going to have a few wars about it. Russia is already flying migrants in and sending them on their merry way to Europe, basically using them to drain resources and fuel anti-migrant sentiment. In the meantime we ourselves will have to deal with droughts and scorching hot weather with all that other shit going on.
Just thinking about it stresses me out, I don't want my kid living through it.
shirk-work t1_iuzwyyc wrote
The universe has always been against us. We just got lazy the last hundred years or so. Complacent with a very unusually comfortable situation. There's definitely going to be tensions, war, famine, and so on but that's been the norm for humanity more so than the current situation. we've been through worse multiple times. Check out the worst year ever. Dang most of the time you wouldn't expect all of your kids to make it to adulthood yet here we all are. It's not about life being tough it's about giving it a big fat middle finger and existing anyways.
ISiupick t1_iv0691j wrote
I have to disagree on the universe thing - the universe keeps trucking along, whether we exist or not. I do have to agree on the fact that we have to give it the middle finger and exist anyway. Thing is, we've been against ourselves this whole time.
Wars, famines and especially climate change are mostly man made. Oil companies have known the consequences of burning fossil fuels for at least 40 years and not only did they not help, they actively hid the research and kept fucking us over. The war in Ukraine, as an example, can be blamed on one man, yet millions suffer.
Just to put a bow on this discussion - "save the planet" seems like such a stupid idea. Earth became a thing 4 bln years ago, humanity is all but a blip in it's history. We should focus on saving ourselves.
CagedBeast3750 t1_iv0hztd wrote
But that is and always has been our nature. In the big picture, "man made" is natural. It doesn't really counter his point - its how we exist, and probably won't change until we're gone. Who knows maybe when the floods come a few will survive and we'll take our game of thrones novels, add some morality lessons, and call it the new testament.
[deleted] t1_iv0rlo8 wrote
[deleted]
sotek2345 t1_iv0l9v1 wrote
On the flip side, one person not existing makes it easier for the rest of the species (less resource use, no carbon emissions, etc.) Spending too much time thinking about this lately. Probably not healthy.
MeSpikey t1_iv0xkpa wrote
Definitely not healthy but very understandable.
Gemini884 t1_iv22z1r wrote
Where did you read that there will be more than a billion(upper end estimate) refugees?
Read IPCC report on impacts instead of speculating-
https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-on-how-climate-change-impacts-the-world/
ISiupick t1_iv2floh wrote
I was taking about the 2-3 bln people the previous comment mentioned. By no means its an accurate number
Blekanly t1_iv0jbfl wrote
Tbf the population is dropping in the west, Japan, China is about to be hit hard.
HeartoftheHive t1_iuzvtt7 wrote
I don't think you grasp how well and truly fucked humanity will be on the whole once shit starts cascading out of control.
shirk-work t1_iuzwols wrote
Definitely for a time but I don't think this is a society collapsing situation. It's too slow. If we want to set up a whole bunch of modified algae making essentially Soylent then we can. We choose not to because there's no need for that now. Food is the key issue, humans can figure out where now is the best area to build and avoid natural disasters. Maybe if the atmospheric oxygen drops drastically then yeah most things will die and humans will build underground cities. Maybe 100 million to 2 billion will hold on and emerge. I think we will likely attempt some drastic geoengineering first which will buy time. There will be some extreme military states to deal with to situation while maintaining order. The value of a human life will drop for a while. Tbh that's been more so the norm than the current situation.
Fortnut_On_Me_Daddy t1_iv015xz wrote
Honestly I bet nuclear apocalypse occurs before any of that. I'm thinking the climate crisis will set off wars that won't end well for anybody.
shirk-work t1_iv04v7z wrote
Now that's fast enough and possibly devastating enough to wipe us out. Seems like an odd choice then again people will all rush an exit during a fire essentially ensuring nearly everyone burns.
Fortnut_On_Me_Daddy t1_iv1f6kb wrote
It does seem like an odd choice, but so does carrying nuclear armaments because everyone else has them. I don't think the collapse of modern civilization wouldn't lead to nuclear war as countries escalate violence to try and fend other countries off of their resources. Not to mention the countless armaments that would likely fall out of governmental hands across the globe.
shirk-work t1_iv1ie5j wrote
I guess nuking someone who can't nuke you back and no global economy to punish you is more likely. Nuking someone who can and will return the favor seems like a zero sum game
HeartoftheHive t1_iv0213d wrote
> It's too slow.
That's an assumption right there. As I said, there are a lot of things that are currently at a tipping point. You don't see imminent disaster once they all start toppling? Water is already starting to become a huge issue and that effects everything, obviously including our food supplies. And this is before the real big dominoes start falling.
shirk-work t1_iv04kvn wrote
I mean we have solutions. Modular nuclear desalination to get as much water as we want. Right now building takes time because a lot of red tape but if we were in a rush a lot of solutions could be deployed within a much shorter timeframe. Once again this isn't to say it's not going to be a shit show and there will be large scale geo engineering not to fix the problem but to buy time.
HeartoftheHive t1_iv05c6f wrote
I don't have any hope that the governments of the world will spare a dime to do more than the bare minimum. They could and should be doing so much more and they simply won't. The signs are obvious and they continue to stick their collective fingers in their ears, saying "tralala" and refusing to do anything more.
I'll be surprised if the world isn't on the way to a Fallout type scenario just from climate change alone when I'm on my death bed.
sotek2345 t1_iv0ljfu wrote
As a whole, we can't think beyond the next quarterly earnings statement. The environment won't collapse in 3 months, we will just boil slowly if we don't nuke ourselves over resources.
HeartoftheHive t1_iv0oncq wrote
I won't say as a whole, but those that are already on top of the corporate pile will do anything and everything to stay at the top. Even if it means burning the Earth in the process.
50bucksback t1_iv0j9jz wrote
Plenty of kids already here and waiting to be adopted
[deleted] t1_iv0q6e7 wrote
[removed]
supermarkise t1_iv2eemk wrote
Looking at the process, costs and prerequisites.. looks kinda impossible, sorry. And I'm not equipped to deal well with too much special needs, so the chances go down even further.
nagi603 t1_iv0pld1 wrote
"Welcome to life, kids... welcome to hell."
ISiupick t1_iv0q7h3 wrote
Good luck kid.
dies
FredPolk t1_iuzzvkw wrote
Only the poor will be fucked. Are you poor? If not, make babies.
LeopardThatEatsKids t1_iv00hao wrote
How remarkably unempathetic.
[deleted] t1_iv01t8v wrote
[deleted]
FredPolk t1_iv05gyv wrote
Just stating facts. People shouldn't change their family plans for climate change. Climate change is going to happen whether he has kids or not. If he wants kids, it's ridiculous for him to change his life plans because of climate change. The highest birth rates in the world are in sub-Saharan Africa. Climate change will take a toll there. Famine and poverty will only get worse. They couldn't sustain their population decades ago, let alone current or future populations combined with droughts and other climate change effects. People will be displaced. It's just about whether they can afford it or not.
FantasyThrowaway321 t1_iv0s38h wrote
I don’t think ‘facts’ means what you think it does in this situation. sure it’s going to happen, but it’s hard to talk out of one side of your mouth saying you want to help prevent and improve it and then also having kids knowing what we know is OK because, well, ‘I can afford it’ like you said. And that’s not even to say those living in situations currently will be safe or habitable in 10 years.
“Having a child is 7-times worse for the climate in CO2 emissions annually than the next 10 most discussed mitigants that individuals can do,”
FredPolk t1_iv1unuw wrote
If he doesn’t have the kid though, someone else will. It’s the same for any animal species. There is a limit and a certain sustainable population. If humans are going to experience some die off, it’s still better to have more population than less even if population is the catalyst. I think it is obvious at this point that we aren’t going to change the course by choice. It will be forced upon us. The losers will be those in 3rd world countries who can’t afford to relocate or simply get stuck in the path of destruction and they can’t afford to rebuild homes and infrastructure. E.g. Haiti after earthquake and hurricanes. Climate change isn’t a nuclear armageddon and deciding not to have children will do nothing to change the course. It just means someone else will unless the entire world agreed to a child policy which isn’t practical or realistic. Eugenics should have been further researched and enforced 100 years ago.
ISiupick t1_iv06f8u wrote
Do you really think the rich will survive? Even if they manage to build some epic apocalypse bunker, they have to power it and feed themselves somehow. With the Earth in a global warming nosedive, none will survive.
FredPolk t1_iv06mq5 wrote
Climate change doesn't equal apocalypse. The poorest on Earth will suffer the most and the wealthiest will suffer the least.
ISiupick t1_iv09pa0 wrote
Climate change with no action to stop it (current situation) equals apocalypse. Shell released some promo about them going net-zero. Putting aside the fact that net-zero in practice is bullshit, they hade some small print. When you got into the small print, it had even smaller print that said "It's just marketing. We don't care if we hit those targets".
The poor will be the first to suffer, the rich will just delay their demise. And by the way, all that wealth is useless if you don't have any poors to push around. Or you know... actually gerenate that wealth for you to steal from them.
FredPolk t1_iv0bh4d wrote
When I say poor, I mean the REAL poor. Nigeria poor. India slums poor. Vietnam poor. Your job at Wendy's is rich compared to the real poor of the world. You are on a computer and likely own a newer iPhone or Samsung phone with brand sneakers on your feet. There will be plenty of Wendy's and McDonalds workers. Western countries will be fine even with the worst predictions. Doesn't mean it is going to be a cake walk, but it's not all or nothing like you seem to believe.
ISiupick t1_iv0ct7t wrote
I think it is all or nothing. Billions of climate refugees are going to try to relocate, creating conflicts, straining supply chains and furthering the energy crisis. Not to mention all the humanitarian and medical crisises that will arise from that migration. Looking at current politics, I feel like we're going to wake up with a wall of people at our borders and the only people with an "answer" will be assholes the likes of Orban, Trump, Kaczyński, Le Pen, BoJo, Putin, etc.
Yes, a Wendy's worker is rich compared to some slave-wage worker from Bangladesh. That still doesn't change the fact that "The poor will be the first to suffer, the rich will just delay their demise." - however you choose to define rich and poor. Pakistan produces 0.5% of global emissions, yet they're the first ones to suffer - almost 30% of the country is flooded, millions of people displaced, thousands of schools, hospitals, etc. destroyed boyond repair.
Same thing can happen in Florida when the inevitable rise of the sea floods it from below, when levies break in the Netherlands, when the soil in Ukraine is bone-dry and unable to produce crops, that get exported globally.
Wether we have iPhones or have to beg for money on the streets in some 3rd world country, the climate doesn't care. Global warming is... global. Droughts, floods, storms, hurricanes are everywhere and everywhere they're breaking records every year. We (western nations) have the resources and knowledge to do something about it. It's just that rich cunts don't want us to do anything, because it will hurt their profits.
Beer-Milkshakes t1_iv0772h wrote
In 40 years time when the methane deposits melt the ozone, the ocean levels rise and annual city wrecking storms are commonplace. The politicians will say "well who could have predicted such widespread disaster, its impossible, anyway here is why we need to put security cameras at the end of every street.
FantasyThrowaway321 t1_iv0rd24 wrote
‘However, in the years leading up to this dismal moment, I and those around me have profited greatly and we will use those profits to keep you on the other side of this fence guarding our food and water’
[deleted] t1_iuzov5v wrote
[removed]
rakelake t1_iv1j0xu wrote
Also the Great Salt Lake in Utah has drastically declining lake levels, exposing toxic arsenic and other minerals that has dormant under the salt water all this time. Once the lake bed dries, poisonous dust particles will fill the air and quite literally poison the valley, since air can’t easily escape due to the mountains creating a bowl effect trapping the poisonous air (like the notoriously bad inversions they have). People will either die, have to move, or live life with a gas mask on whenever we go outside.
shirk-work t1_iv1ji0x wrote
The Mormon containment unit will fail.
rakelake t1_iv1lt9z wrote
it already has, they run our state, hence the doom
shirk-work t1_iv2lsft wrote
People say it's Mormons. People say it's scientologist. I say why not both.
Gemini884 t1_iv2255c wrote
Read IPCC report on impacts and read what climate scientists say instead of speculating-
https://nitter.kavin.rocks/MichaelEMann/status/1432786640943173632#m
https://nitter.42l.fr/ClimateAdam/status/1553757380827140097
https://nitter.42l.fr/GlobalEcoGuy/status/1477784375060279299#m
https://nitter.42l.fr/JacquelynGill/status/1553503548331249664#m
https://nitter.kavin.rocks/hausfath/status/1533875297220587520#m
https://nitter.42l.fr/JacquelynGill/status/1513918579657232388#m
https://nitter.42l.fr/waiterich/status/1477716206907965440#m
[deleted] t1_iv2jsuv wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments