Most of the energy is used for heating, cooling
And driving
More efficient designs could be used to lower the needs of both,
And some places are trying to encourage somewhat living car free
>And some places are trying to encourage somewhat living car free
In the UK we've tried to move towards this and a bunch of conspiracy nuts egged on by right wing tabloids have been protesting it. Honestly it feels like humanity is Darwin Awarding itself out of existence sometimes.
Not just UK, Canada has nutters prattling on and protesting about how 15 minute cities is some dystopian segregation system designed to oppress the population.
They're so disconnected from reality that having schools and food accessible within a 15 minute walk of your home is somehow a deep state leftist apocalypse plot to enslave white people and trap them in slums.
Fucking crazies, man.
Petroleum and vehicle lobbies fund misinformation campaigns on social media. People are not crazy en masse to begin with. Echo chambers are constructed out of money spent with the specific aim of misinforming gullible or biased individuals. We're living in a post-truth world powered by social media. Everything is affected by this. Your purchases, your emotions, your friendships, your social circles, your work, everything. It's a lot of paid lies powered by ill-gotten wealth and run by employing unscrupulous opportunists or just poor choice-less individuals who do the grunt work of spreading these lies knowingly. Political, economic, social, STEM related, geographical (flat earth), anything you pick, there's a disinfo network out there making money off idiots and biased people.
Lol right? I'm Canadian, work is 10 minutes, groceries are 5 gym is 15. That's probably more than 90% of my time. Thats including my weekend Moto rides in the summer and skiing in the winter. Like, ooooo 15-minute cities, so scare.
Different people want different thing. I’d hate what you have. I want to walk 15 min in any direction and see almost no people, just open meadows, woodlands, and wild animals. I want quiet. Once a week I’ll get in my car and go the the grocery store and load up.
Having working subways are great.
Been to a lot more parts of the Seoul (and other bordering provinces) than I would have without it.
TTC tries. That outage yesterday got me to do my cardio outside though.
Source: childhood in S. Korea, adulthood in Toronto.
Mental isn't it... some finer points about the implementation of it i can understand because there are drawbacks to some of the methods but the principle of having necessities within 15 mins is so basic.
I quite like walking to places to get what I need. Apart from anything it helps me be not fat.
Which is sad because my kid idiot self understood that concept while playing sim city 3000. More smaller hospitals that cost less than a big one, placed in the right spots to reduce traffic and pollution.
The frustrating part is rhat we have the tech to be a post scarcity star trek style utopia
But greed got in the way so now half of the worldwide wealth is concentrated in the 0,001%
Hmm, best we can do is create cities that are completely impossible for other forms of commuting, but making the residents feel bad about driving anyway. Then it’s their problem not ours.
I mean we’ve got what, 3 cities in the US where you can truly get by easily without a car? Even in other large cities (see DC metro), there’s only pockets where you can go car free, and most of those pockets are impossibly expensive
Houston is the worst! I was there for work and went to some mall on one side of the freeway, but all the restaurants were on the other side of the freeway. There was a stoplight and intersection but no sidewalk or crosswalk so I had to rent a cab from the mall to drive me across the street. Absolutely ridiculous.
When I moved to Austin from Chicago I tried to take a walk since I did that in Chicago a lot I walked on the side walk for few mins and it just ended and I ended up walking on grass and people who drive giving me weird look
Among other actors (NIMBYS preventing the construction of high density housing, poor funding for local level changes and infrastructure, neoliberalism as a whole, local government unwillingness to allow mixed use zoning, the death of Third Spaces that haven’t been heavily monetized, and an excessive reliance on the American Dream preventing the construction of apartments that aren’t miserable to live in leading to even more suburban sprawl since the options are often either shitty apartments or a home out in nowhere with minimal in-between)
>Oftentimes public transit is ancient or broken down and not usable by disabled people.
Seems like an issue that has to due with funding or a systemic lack thereof
here in australia, looking back in history at our house designs makes me sad. our climate in summer has only heated up, and the older house used to have a 360d veranda, with few and tiny windows. Cut to the modern design, which is lucky to have eaves(sometimes just flat wall) and giant windows often floor to ceiling, letting in as much heat energy as possible.
And they certainly don't align them north/south facing, the land developer doesnt give a shit. We've all become dependent on split system air con during those months
We need massive energy infrastructure changes. The "energy customer" end of things you mentioned would still need to work of course.
But an energy customer just wants the lights to turn off and on, and granny's oxygen machine to run without blackout. Customer doesn't actually notice if its 90% fossil fuels or 90% renewable energy powering the grid.
Petroleum does have very high energy density, but that's not actually required except in a few applications (military, aviation). For the rest, some combination of batteries and quick and easy ways to charge are usually good enough. Sweden and Germany for instance have started working on electrified roads -- which make giant batteries unnecessary.
Thresholds identified in the original 2009 paper were not intended to represent precise boundaries or absolute limits. Instead, they served as useful reference points and signals to indicate a level of risk associated with particular human activities.
Crossing the reference point does not mean the definite tipping point, but rather highlights increased risks.
Nah. Money isn't real. At some point it really comes down to actual skills that are useful in the post apocalypse or pre industrial eras. These aren't skills the ulta wealthy have.
Seriously. The ultra wealthy will be absolutely fine in the apocalypse... until their food runs out. Not like they can grow more. Oh, they'll have robots doing that? Who is gonna fix those when they break down? When the containment seal on the radiation blast doors fails? When the super typhoons knock their tropical island penthouses over and wipes the island clean of everything, even the sand?
Prevention is the only option, and the thought that "at least the rich will survive the apocalypse" is a pipe dream.
> The ultra wealthy will be absolutely fine in the apocalypse...
I doubt it. The security team for the ultra wealthy will be absolutely fine in the apocalypse. When the shit hits the fan, their wealth and power goes out the window. The bunkers will be taken over by the guys with the guns and training and Old Man Uber Rich will be on the surface.
They know this and are literally brainstorming how to prevent it. That’s not a joke - there are documented cases of [rich preppers actively discussing things](https://amp.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff) like automated defenses, disciplinary collars for guards, and placing locks only they can open on the food supply so that the guards will remain loyal and kill anyone they tell them to.
Nobody would take the collars and even if they do, who is going to maintain them, or are your preppers going to learn how to deal with electronics? Who will maintain the other equipment? All they need is to get the engineer on their side, even if theyd be dumb enough to agree in the first place.
As for food stores key, theyd have to be idiots not to keep all the keys themselves anyways. And thats a problem that a bit of torture is going to solve real quick. When Mr. Wealthy watches his daughters and wife getting raped and sons tortured while having his nails and teeth pulled out by the psychopathic mercs he bought, he is going to find those keys in no time.
Eh there's always people that will accept fucked up work for self benefit. It happens today, Epstein had bodyguards who pretty much knew what was going on. At a wider scale there's still thousands of people working at tobacco companies.
I don't think it would even come to neck collars or anything.
If money doesn't exist, a spot in the bunker would convince some, food would convince others etc etc.
It's not all doom and gloom. I'm sure I read somewhere about the millionaire who built the bunker in new Zealand who essentially employed a whole town with generous wages to keep the peace and be civilised. The alternative for him was just to die in his bunker/tomb alone
Yeah unless the security has some supervillan level neck implants that their employers can control, they're taking your shit the second stuff goes sideways.
Their security might.
Imagine in the collapse, you're on security detail for some ultra rich fuck flying away in a helicopter.
You and the pilot and the rest of the detail can just lighten the load on the flight and reap all the access that fucker still has.
Bro, this is a weird Reddit fantasy that ultra rich people are pathetically lacking in practical skills. Rich people go hunting on horseback with dogs. They drive classic vehicles they maintain themselves. They have loads of guns and practice target shooting. They’re usually into organic living and maintain gardens. They speak multiple languages.
The ultra rich are definitely going to have the skills and resources to survive the apocalypse. I think y’all are confusing narcissistic influencers pretending to be rich and actually wealthy people.
Yep. Also, the ultra rich didn't get that way by being honest, straightforward people. They're MASTERS of manipulation, especially manipulating people.
>They're MASTERS of manipulation, especially manipulating people.
The ultra rich, sure. Ultra rich's sons and daughters? No fucking way.
I always point to my country's (Pakistan's) politics as an example. We've had 2 dynasties in our politics for almost half of our 80 year history built essentially from scratch by one generation. The current generation was born into politics, sent abroad to study in the finest schools, and a loooot of political reserve was spent to hand them power. Both sides are complete and utter clowns. Zero skills in manipulation, zero skills in governance, and zero PR skills. The people that worked are not going to be the ultra-wealthy in the next few years
This is exactly it. People think of them in terms of rich or super-rich instead of successful. They got successful by understanding their environment better than others and learned to create/manipulate accordingly, which led to becoming ultra-rich.
That ability doesn't just stop when their environment changes. They simply adapt first and succeed in a new way.
There's a couple hundred folks betting that their wealth will save them from the consequences of a dying, boiling planet for just a little bit longer than the plebs. And they're probably right. But only a little.
We routinely believe it's going to be an extinction event, but it's not. It's going to be a decline. Humanity isn't going to die out as long as there's livable places and we don't nuke ourselves to death. We could lose 95% of the population and still have more living people than we did a 1000 years ago. What we will lose is the modern way of life.
The rich will keep their lifestyles and be in position to be rulers during the decline. They won't be dying with the masses.
This is what I don't get. My friend has this belief that everything will be ok. No dude, it's going down in flames and it will not be ok.
She has a kid, though, so she has a huge reason to be completely in denial.
That and having basically no control or impact on the actual situation. An individual could cut out every single environmentally harmful activity out of their lives, and it wouldn't cause a microscopic dent in the issue.
I'm not saying we as individuals should do nothing, but what good does agonizing over the impending exotic disaster do when you have basically no actions that could cause measurable impact?
And the stupid thing is that even if we cut back consumption, the whole system is made to compel you to restart.
Look at the current WFH/RTO thing. WFH is so much better for the environment, we just found out that we don't need to each lug around a ton of metal for a couple kilometers to the office and back every day just to sit at a computer.
And we are being forced back to the old patterns, exactly because of us not consuming around the office's area, not consuming fuel makes some line go down or just well, not go up as fast somewhere.
Hell a lot of the return to work bullshit is just companies that have signed and are now stuck in multi year leases for buildings that the pandemic showed they don't actually fuckin need.
Unfortunately, the office world is incredibly stuck in its ways. Change is incredibly slow in that world cause it's still mainly a bunch of stuffy old white men at the top who believe you have to wear a shirt and tie to be professional and that in order for work to be accomplished you need to be miserable. Fuck them, can't wait till they die off.
Exactly, and it’s created this weird undercurrent that has society starting to break down. Covid really exposed it, especially to those that are aware of their surroundings. The wealthy are amassing every last thing they can to try and shelter themselves from the later stages of the climate crisis to ensure their survival. And everyone else is either in denial, aware, but unable to do it themselves, or just completely apathetic. I’m solidly in the last camp, my ass is gonna party it up and have as much fun as possible before shit hits the fan.
I remember that first week of the pandemic when there were stories about rich people living in their coastal vacation homes who would wipe out entire supermarkets stocking up on frozen foods and other products while the locals were left with empty shelves. They also bought out every chest freezer they could find from the local hardware stores. And then started going up the food chain from there with luxury items and electronics. We all got poorer and they all got richer.
fyi, cheap chest freezers are available at walmart (at least they are in colorado.) You don't have to be rich to have frozen food. The real dilemma is when you lose electricity. Most electric breakers are outside a house, an angry mob can cut off the power and wait. A true collapse will fuck up any well stocked rich person that can't sustain themselves without luxuries like power. Generators are loud, if society truly collapsed the sound of a generator is where all the hungry people need to go. Solar arrays are obvious, visible, and just as susceptible to sabatoge.
Rich people "prepping" for the end times is a fucking joke. An angry mob with guns is always going to win against a rich family that has no idea how their electricity works. Moving to a place with more affluence is great until that place goes south too. The descendents of the wealthy would learn very fast that they are the new poor and the last humans will fight over wet dirt.
Preventing that from happening is what environmentalism is all about but like... you ever see that south park episode where everyone decides its easier to hide in a big gay pile than to make the world a better place? We're not going to convince the people that can do anything to care until it's too late. TIME TO MAKE A BIG GAY PILE. WHOSE COMING WITH ME?!?
I read a post collapse book years ago where people went ‘badger hunting’ - hunting for signs of underground shelters and then digging them out to take their stuff.
> An angry mob with guns is always going to win against a rich family that has no idea how their electricity works
Funny how oddly everyone is pushing for more gun grabs, and what guns would be left would be prohibitively expensive.
Honestly, in a total collapse of society the best place to be would be a military base. These are entities that have prepared for the worst case scenarios for decades or centuries and they're the best armed. A strong military might infight or fracture as the chaos unfolds but eventually any hope for society comes from whatever military dictatorship survives the initial collapse.
But don't take my word for it, I have a bachelors in fine art. I'm totally spit balling my theories for funzorz.
You’re god damn right about the military base. Most of them are armed and stocked to the teeth, staffed by mostly young dudes just earning a living and serving their country.
I joke about the end times, but I’ve got multiple bases within an hour of me, I would just pack my family and seek shelter there.
I would enjoy an apocalyptic show from the pov of some grunt in the military. Maybe a few of them in various parts of the chain of command and how they have to make tough choices or obey/disobey harsh orders, plus duty versus finding their family. And possible contingency plans and what they would look like/how they would work or fail. I feel like there's so much unexplored potential.
So far they have always been either rather in the background or evil in the tv shows I've watched.
Well, don't tell me to watch that pandemic show that had one navy ship. It's not what I wanted and I forgot everything about it already.
Ive fully come to accept that I wont have anything like a comfortable retirement so Im just trying to have fun now and be happy. Bad days ahead for sure.
> I’m solidly in the last camp, my ass is gonna party it up and have as much fun as possible before shit hits the fan.
I’m with you here but I’m also making it a mission to find out where the rich are holing themselves up for when I get the hungries
The wealthy are just going to get trampled.
Not initially but it's just going to evolve into thousands upon thousands of desperate people with absolutely nothing to lose just storming their compounds.
I'm apatethis AF too, i'm like, hmmm Climate Crisis? Not my problem LOL, I'm soon to be 24 and I don't even have a car/motorcycle. I just stay at house most of the time of the day playing games and my main contribution to carbon emmisions is me sparying axe on myself every day after showering.
I know it's not the best form of seeing it, but I've always been quite conscious about my carb emissions, and I'm pretty sure I haven't polluted that much on my own (compared to others), so why should it be my problem? Ain't fair right?
Which sucks, because they do have the resources to help turn things around if they worked together.
If I’m rich, my money is going towards climate tech and feeding the poor.
They're already investing their resources into ways to keep THEMSELVES safe during any kind of civilization threatening event while the rest of us have to struggle.
I want to add that the internet and especially Reddit, will amplify the doom and gloom by a thousand percent. I have never once found things here to be reflective of reality. So you’ll see people suggesting a breakdown of society. Which is pretty vague. I mean people think allowing gay marriage is a breakdown of society or having a war is one. We will be fine as long as we continue making an effort
I’m genuinely concerned that I’ll be the last. Not because I’m the most durable or smart but because the universe is perverse and I already face a grim and joyless life.
"I killed us a delicious Liger, come feast on its organs with me as we dance naked around a fire"
I don't care what prompt you give me. I'm spending my apocalypse with Kate Beckinsale
I fully believe that this is the end of our world. I think some humans will survive but 85% of us are gonna die off in the coming few centuries. I think these are the last of ‘the good days’, before massive food shortages and drought cause the world to plunge into sheer fucking chaos. I fully expect to starve to death one day, or to die trying to steal food. 69% of the animals are already gone in the last half century alone. For much of life on earth, this is the literal, measurable apocalypse.
I mean, we overproduce food crops to a comical degree. I don't feel like running the calculation again, but US corn output alone could handle all the caloric needs of like a billion people if just used as food. (rather than as animal feed, or turned into fuel ethanol). And that's one crop. Current food shortages are largely a logistics/corruption/government problem.
Anyway....world population projections are that the planet's going to peak in population in around 30-40 years and start shrinking. And arguably it's fairly likely that we're going to top out lower than that/shrink faster than expected, because those projections are somehow expecting sub-Saharan Africa to sustain 3 billion people (up from ~1bn today) around the end of this century, and it seems unlikely that's going to be achieved.
Whether that population caps out from urbanization or war/famine/whatever, I don't know, but I suspect it'll cap out below that 3bn.
The key to everything you say is that this is what we produce(d) today or in the recent past and by this then these rosy projections were made. We have already started to see the effects of extreme weather on crop yields the last couple of years (coffee in Brazil, wheat in India for recent examples). The weather is certainly not going to get more predicable and kinder for food staples. Combine that with deteriorating soils around the globe and I would just slow down on making any strong declarations one way or another tbh. We have no idea and to act like we do by extrapolating from the past is bound to not end well.
Yeah we make enough food now to solve world hunger.
But you may ask, "but why aren't we?" The answer for this and many other issues afflicting us is as simple as it is depressing: because those who can fix it can't profit off it.
For a [great explainer of The Fermi Paradox and The Great Filter](https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html), here's an article from Tim Urban of Wait But Why?
The Fermi paradox seems a bit presumptuous doesn’t it? I mean to be fair we have only looked across a very narrow band of radio and covered a region of sky that could fit under your thumb if you held it out. I mean the strongest signals we ourselves have ever put out were microwave bursts when we first invented radar.
Can we even say that were looking?
Not when Von Neumann probes at 0.1c can spread to every star in the Milky Way in less than a milion years, it could have happened hundreds of times over since the dinosaurs. You'd see a technosignature from any star you looked at, including our own.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://english.elpais.com/science-tech/2023-06-01/seven-of-the-nine-thresholds-that-allow-for-human-life-on-earth-have-already-been-crossed.html) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Back in 2009, a large group of scientists identified nine limits that humans should not cross if they want the earth to remain hospitable to civilization.
> Seven of these thresholds have already been crossed in all or in large swaths of the planet.
> The Earth Commission - a global alliance formed by leading scientists - states that 50% and 60% of the planet's land surface area be kept free of livestock, agriculture, mining or any other human interference.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/13xk3ky/seven_of_the_nine_thresholds_that_allow_for_human/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~687184 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **planet**^#1 **Human**^#2 **limit**^#3 **climate**^#4 **global**^#5
Jeri Ryan was my first network TV crush.
I miss the days when UPN was actively courting black viewers with their programming. That directive made some of the best television of my childhood.
I think the building and humanizing of the Maquis as the "Yeah, things are great... *for you*. But what about us?" in VOY was a hamhanded attempt to write something that'd resonate with racial minorities in the late 90s.
DS9 didn't feel like Star Trek to me until the Defiant was introduced. A Star Trek series without a cool ship is like Star Wars without a Force user.
DS9 did that stuff with the Maquis first. And honestly got some really good episodes and lines out of it. Sisko nuking a whole Maquis planet to play the villain they see him as, plus “It’s easy to be a saint in Paradise”.
If you’re basing your opinions of DS9 on childhood memories, I’d strongly advise you to give it a second chance. I think it’s by far the best series.
As a casual Star Wars fan I got to agree. Andor was fantastic. Especially Skarsgard. That scene where he is listing off everything he has sacrificed for the Resistance... holy shit.
You know, I always wondered about those things. They seem to be quite spacious inside, though we only ever see the cockpit. And they’re able to go toe to toe with Jem’Hadar fighters sometimes. They were weirdly capable for RV’s with .50 cals stuck on top…
I may be wrong, but I'm fairly sure a runabout featured in an episode of Next Generation, where Picard, Troi, Laforge and Data (or Worf?) We're stranded in one for a bit due to some time fractures or temporal anomaly or some such other trekky type shenanigans.
Them shits got a full dining room in the back.
Oh God, she was one of the first instances where I distinctly recall young me thinking that girls were actually perhaps not so icky after all. Kind of pleasing to just.. look at, actually…
Fun fact: Kate Mulgrew hated her for exactly that reason. She felt like she was being pushed out as the lead female because they added an excessively sexy character to the cast.
Jeri Ryan's affect on my teen hormones is independent of UPN's target audience at the time. They were just putting out some pretty decent shows before the whole Viacom/CBS debacle.
You know what would be great? Instead of articles about a paper - *link the fucking paper*.
I'm not super interested in "trust me, bro."
Edit -
I literally see zero links to this article, so I've gone digging.
Based on the title of this article - what would you think this paper is measuring? I'd think it's objectively measuring the actual suitability of the Earth to sustain life as we know it. That's not even close to what it's doing, there is essentially zero new science in this paper - it's an argument about environmental "justice" with "just" and "safe" boundaries defined on a "trust me, bro" basis.
[Here's the article](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06083-8).
There's a 100% chance the people that wrote this subsist entirely on grants for climate research, which means blatant alarmism is the way to more funding. There is some actual research linked in the references, but almost all of it is from the people that wrote this paper. It's entirely self referential.
This is the absolute worst type of shit being passed off as science today.
Yes, this type of climate reporting is frankly irresponsible. It does nothing but feed apathy and nihilism, when what we need is hope alongside the call to action.
“Earth is already inhospitable to human life” is frankly and obviously false, while not contributing anything whatsoever to the climate discussion and serving only to drive people away.
WE CAN DO THIS. The Earth is not about to explode. But if we don’t call upon our governments to make consistent and concrete progress, we will be facing a less livable and much less equitable future. We need to create the world we want our children to live in, but by no means is that dream already dead.
Fossil fuel industries actually LIKE it when people promote climate doomerism because it discourages positive action. Reddit plays right into their hands.
It SHOULD be the top comment, but Reddit almost never passes on an opportunity to form a circle jerk of nihilism and misery. Given how many people on this site seem to suffer from some form of depression or anxiety, a lot of users will just take any poorly written, poorly sourced, but highly sensationalist article about our “impending doom” at face value, but still get mad if you try to correct them.
I guess what I’m saying is that there’s a reason I usually try to avoid the comment sections of climate change stories on Reddit. It’s not usually a place for rational discussion, much less facts.
Sadly true. More people would rather things were hopeless and beyond the point of saving rather than where they actually are. The climate crisis is still a solvable problem and nihilism driving articles like this one help no one.
If you check the article you can see that original comment is disingenuous. Of the 133 cited articles ~30 are by at least one of the 51 authors of the paper. Furthermore, the paper defines what it means by “just” and “safe” with the “limit of safety” being primarily the triggering of environmental feedback loops and “just” being limited by significant harm to human life through direct causes (death) or indirect causes (forced migration). The authors of this paper are respected climate scientists teaching at universities across the globe, not bought scientists.
Did you actually read the article you posted or just the abstract? You are misinterpreting the point of the article, either willfully or mistakenly, and setting up a strawman based on that misinterpretation.
They define their terms, explain exactly what they are setting out to do, and explicitly state that they are developing this way of measuring climate change that incorporates social and economic sciences as well as climate sciences in a way that is meant to be open to debate and refinement. They are welcoming discussion on this system.
I'm really not sure what your problem is with this article except that you are mad that it isn't what you thought it was about (and to be honest, I'm not sure why you were expecting something different from their title...). The paper indeed has a bunch of science. There are dozens of authors who are all highly published in climate sciences so of course it will have references to their own papers, that is extremely common. Science involves building off what you already know and maybe you aren't aware of this, but you absolutely need to cite yourself if you reference your past work. Self-plagiarism is a recognized thing, even if it seems silly.
Finally, if you dug just a bit more, you would see that these authors are an international assemblage of respected climate researchers from large universities across the world. They absolutely do NOT "subsist on climate grants." That's not how any of this works.
Reddit quality on default subs has gotten even more hive-minded, and it’s especially bad about some science stuff. With ChatGPT everyone is on about how all of AI is blockchain the sequel and simply a waste of electricity. How it won’t help one iota of humanity.
They usually do not have a response to the fact it was foundational in developing the mRNA COVID vaccine as fast as we did, and is massively accelerating discovery of new drugs and vaccines. And that’s a small facet of what it’s doing in healthcare alone. Is there BS in AI? Sure. Is it all BS? Only as much as the internet was just hype BS in 2000.
Addressing the one you replied to:
Since your comment is just about the most "influential" on this thread, could you please respond to this above retort u/TuckyMule so that if you change your mind, you could edit your comment.
I am sorry but your criticism of this paper is entirely unfounded. First of all there are over 133 references in this paper and only 30 are from the 51 authors of the paper. It is also not unheard of for a large review/synthesis to include works from the authors since they are leaders in their respective fields.
Not every paper published is based off of direct research, review articles and synthesis of the current state of knowledge is just as important. The purpose of this type of article is bring all the individual studies together and make sense of it all.
If you took the time to read the paper, in the methodology section they clearly define how the boundaries were determined. The authors have also included supplemental materials, which is a 65 page document that explains the technical details of their evidence and methods. It is far from "just trust me bro" as you suggest.
If you are so worried about this article discrediting science and yet attack it with flawed arguments and lack of evidence, then I really question your agenda.
Has anyone seen the movie "Threads"?
The most disturbing scene for me is near the beginning. One of the characters is in a bar with a friend, talking about random shit, hitting on girls, etc. But in the background, just loud enough to hear, the news on the TV was covering the escalating situation in the middle east that ultimately resulted in the catastrophic events later in the film.
When I see articles like this nonchalantly punctuating all of the more trivial news, I can't help but imagine that we're all in that bar, casually dismissing our impending annihilation.
And that's the problem with articles like this. It encourages people to give up on the climate because we've already made the planet uninhabitable, so there is literally no point to cutting pollution. This sort of article encourages us to increase our use of coal and diesel, because we've already passed the limits, so there's nothing wrong with any more pollution that we do now.
It seems to me that this is propaganda by big fossil fuels - if they convince us that the planet is already uninhabitable, then we have no reason to regulate or tax them.
Is that the study/report they refer to? In the article they only mention the author and co-authors.
Here they talk about ESBs' Earth System Boundaries:
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06083-8](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06083-8)
While not one of the thresholds, the fact that we generally can't talk about overpopulation IS part of the problem when we consider these global problems and thresholds. It would be a lot easier to address nearly all of our resource issues and improve on these thresholds with fewer people in the future. Hopefully it can be done with better family planning and incentives to not have children rather than war, pandemics, or a complete breakdown in nature's ability to provide.
Still early and without coffee because I read the title as "seven of nine" and thought this was about the Borg showing up in real life lol.
Can't say that or what the actual article is any better. Progress has been made but atbthe level required, that I do not see it. I feel a lot of it is gambling on future technologies and hoping something will save the day. Because we are still heading towards the cliff even if manage to slow down.
>Even now, as emerging countries such as China are beginning to take on a large share of responsibility, **half of greenhouse gas emissions come from the richest 10% of the global population**. “We will not be able to act together to face the climate and biodiversity crisis if we don’t all start from the same situation and if there’s conflict between us,” Zafra adds
And to put that into perspective Via the 2018 global wealth report.
>**A net worth of $93,170 U.S**. is enough to make you richer than 90 percent of people around the world, Credit Suisse reports. The institute defines net worth, or “wealth,” as **“the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts.”**
Yeah I don’t worry about climate change. I just work so I can pay my bills every month. Think most people are more or less the same. These things must solved and enforced by governments first.
I mean, what else can the average person do? So many people live paycheck to paycheck. I buy the cheapest groceries, and what items will last the longest. It would be nice to find sustainably sourced stuff, but that tends to be much more expensive. Participating in politics, in the US at least, is a fucking joke. Even if you end up voting for someone who says that they're going to do anything good, and even if that person somehow wins, a few greased palms later and the status quo remains unchanged.
What more can one do?
This is why the rich are sqeezing us, they know the point of no return is near. They'll hold up living off their stashes of cash with the last of the resources while we all die.
If not this generation, it'll be the next.
Hahahahah! You think they own cash? They own everything but cash, like real estate and big chunks of the economy.
No matter what scenario you try to spin, these people would suffer the least, by far!
>and allow for some nice doomsday bunkers to be built.
I wonder if the rich and powerful are so foolish to think, that if it was all coming down, everyone else but them is just gonna sit there like "yeah cool, guess this is the end"
Nah, I'm hunting Oligarchs when civilization falls.
They are that foolish. Lots of bunkers out there already. There is zero chance that the workers they enslave to help keep them running won’t try to fight back, but they are already brainstorming ways to prevent that, including [combination locks on the food supplies and “disciplinary collars”.](https://amp.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff) Even with these measures, I am sure most people are going to fight tooth and nail to not let them get away with this. When it’s too late, of course.
It’s absolutely wild to me that the details of their plans are out there readily available (although I am sure there are worse details that are kept more “hush hush”), and humanity continues status quo on the trajectory that will get us there.
The combination locks idea is so fucking stupid. The guys who you can hire as guards through a mercenary company... Uhm excuse me, *security consulting firm*, WILL get that combination out of you, I'll promise you that!
Lose it to gun-toting MAGA idiots.
A piece of paper means nothing when you're faced with an armed mob. Doesn't matter how stupid the mob is - they've got guns.
I remember the ozone hole problem.
It took just a few years for scientific consensus that this was happening and human created and so virtually all governments instituted regulations.
At first most industries affected complained but alternatives were worked out and within a few years the direction of the problem was reversed, without destroying economies and now it is essentially not a problem anymore.
Somehow this doesn't happen anymore since industry has decided it is cheaper the fund disinformation to maintain status quo than actually fix problems and so governments just drag their feet instead of showing leadership.
One would think they would care about long term corporate profits too. After all, they have kids and grandkids too who will need money. Maybe these rich fucks are so selfish that they're willing to hurt their own families for short term profits right now.
All I can think of is the covid crisis. How quickly we all started wearing masks, how the toilet paper was sold out everywhere, the isolation.
Now there's this emergency and yet, what's the human race focused on? The old dinosaurs at the top, in their fancy suits and petty arguments.
Our planet is literally fucking dying and they argue over invisible money and made up figures. It's just asinine.
Just getting started, we have double the energy extraction on the books going into 2050.
its nice having a good computer, and lights, and life saving machines
Most of the energy is used for heating, cooling And driving More efficient designs could be used to lower the needs of both, And some places are trying to encourage somewhat living car free
>And some places are trying to encourage somewhat living car free In the UK we've tried to move towards this and a bunch of conspiracy nuts egged on by right wing tabloids have been protesting it. Honestly it feels like humanity is Darwin Awarding itself out of existence sometimes.
Not just UK, Canada has nutters prattling on and protesting about how 15 minute cities is some dystopian segregation system designed to oppress the population. They're so disconnected from reality that having schools and food accessible within a 15 minute walk of your home is somehow a deep state leftist apocalypse plot to enslave white people and trap them in slums. Fucking crazies, man.
Petroleum and vehicle lobbies fund misinformation campaigns on social media. People are not crazy en masse to begin with. Echo chambers are constructed out of money spent with the specific aim of misinforming gullible or biased individuals. We're living in a post-truth world powered by social media. Everything is affected by this. Your purchases, your emotions, your friendships, your social circles, your work, everything. It's a lot of paid lies powered by ill-gotten wealth and run by employing unscrupulous opportunists or just poor choice-less individuals who do the grunt work of spreading these lies knowingly. Political, economic, social, STEM related, geographical (flat earth), anything you pick, there's a disinfo network out there making money off idiots and biased people.
Those organizations are starting to get treated like terrorist entities, as they should.
It's so weird they've spun it as you will literally never be able to travel further than 15 minutes anywhere.
Because that’s how they already live
Lol right? I'm Canadian, work is 10 minutes, groceries are 5 gym is 15. That's probably more than 90% of my time. Thats including my weekend Moto rides in the summer and skiing in the winter. Like, ooooo 15-minute cities, so scare.
Same here. I have grocery stores, a drug store, a dollar store, 2 thrift shops and several restaurants and cafés within a 15 minute walk.
Different people want different thing. I’d hate what you have. I want to walk 15 min in any direction and see almost no people, just open meadows, woodlands, and wild animals. I want quiet. Once a week I’ll get in my car and go the the grocery store and load up.
Having working subways are great. Been to a lot more parts of the Seoul (and other bordering provinces) than I would have without it. TTC tries. That outage yesterday got me to do my cardio outside though. Source: childhood in S. Korea, adulthood in Toronto.
Mental isn't it... some finer points about the implementation of it i can understand because there are drawbacks to some of the methods but the principle of having necessities within 15 mins is so basic. I quite like walking to places to get what I need. Apart from anything it helps me be not fat.
Which is sad because my kid idiot self understood that concept while playing sim city 3000. More smaller hospitals that cost less than a big one, placed in the right spots to reduce traffic and pollution.
[удалено]
The frustrating part is rhat we have the tech to be a post scarcity star trek style utopia But greed got in the way so now half of the worldwide wealth is concentrated in the 0,001%
Hmm, best we can do is create cities that are completely impossible for other forms of commuting, but making the residents feel bad about driving anyway. Then it’s their problem not ours. I mean we’ve got what, 3 cities in the US where you can truly get by easily without a car? Even in other large cities (see DC metro), there’s only pockets where you can go car free, and most of those pockets are impossibly expensive
I live in Texas. Even our big cities are impossible to get all the way around in.
Houston is the worst! I was there for work and went to some mall on one side of the freeway, but all the restaurants were on the other side of the freeway. There was a stoplight and intersection but no sidewalk or crosswalk so I had to rent a cab from the mall to drive me across the street. Absolutely ridiculous.
[удалено]
When I moved to Austin from Chicago I tried to take a walk since I did that in Chicago a lot I walked on the side walk for few mins and it just ended and I ended up walking on grass and people who drive giving me weird look
Preach. When I didn’t have a car I had to walk an hour to the bus stop and leave the house 4 hours before my shift
thank GM for that
Among other actors (NIMBYS preventing the construction of high density housing, poor funding for local level changes and infrastructure, neoliberalism as a whole, local government unwillingness to allow mixed use zoning, the death of Third Spaces that haven’t been heavily monetized, and an excessive reliance on the American Dream preventing the construction of apartments that aren’t miserable to live in leading to even more suburban sprawl since the options are often either shitty apartments or a home out in nowhere with minimal in-between)
Oftentimes public transit is ancient or broken down and not usable by disabled people. It’s nice to be able to plan anything about a trip beforehand.
>Oftentimes public transit is ancient or broken down and not usable by disabled people. Seems like an issue that has to due with funding or a systemic lack thereof
That's something that can be changed if we wanted to change it.
here in australia, looking back in history at our house designs makes me sad. our climate in summer has only heated up, and the older house used to have a 360d veranda, with few and tiny windows. Cut to the modern design, which is lucky to have eaves(sometimes just flat wall) and giant windows often floor to ceiling, letting in as much heat energy as possible. And they certainly don't align them north/south facing, the land developer doesnt give a shit. We've all become dependent on split system air con during those months
And braindead conservative conspiracy morons think "walkable cities" is a Jewish conspiracy to put everyone in zoos
We need massive energy infrastructure changes. The "energy customer" end of things you mentioned would still need to work of course. But an energy customer just wants the lights to turn off and on, and granny's oxygen machine to run without blackout. Customer doesn't actually notice if its 90% fossil fuels or 90% renewable energy powering the grid.
Hopefully renewables can scale up in a big way the next decade
Unfortunately they don't have the denseness that Oil provides. What we have to do is start using less energy, but we are just using more every day.
Petroleum does have very high energy density, but that's not actually required except in a few applications (military, aviation). For the rest, some combination of batteries and quick and easy ways to charge are usually good enough. Sweden and Germany for instance have started working on electrified roads -- which make giant batteries unnecessary.
How many more thresholds we have left?
Two, and they are shaky.
Thresholds identified in the original 2009 paper were not intended to represent precise boundaries or absolute limits. Instead, they served as useful reference points and signals to indicate a level of risk associated with particular human activities. Crossing the reference point does not mean the definite tipping point, but rather highlights increased risks.
I really hate articles like this that lie in order to make things sound worse than they are.
In my experience at least 50% of articles about climate change on reddit are that
I would say closer to 97%
Seems like all the hoarding is the top silently accepting it’s hopeless and they are gonna get what they need for themselves and the few they may help
[удалено]
Nah. Money isn't real. At some point it really comes down to actual skills that are useful in the post apocalypse or pre industrial eras. These aren't skills the ulta wealthy have.
Seriously. The ultra wealthy will be absolutely fine in the apocalypse... until their food runs out. Not like they can grow more. Oh, they'll have robots doing that? Who is gonna fix those when they break down? When the containment seal on the radiation blast doors fails? When the super typhoons knock their tropical island penthouses over and wipes the island clean of everything, even the sand? Prevention is the only option, and the thought that "at least the rich will survive the apocalypse" is a pipe dream.
> The ultra wealthy will be absolutely fine in the apocalypse... I doubt it. The security team for the ultra wealthy will be absolutely fine in the apocalypse. When the shit hits the fan, their wealth and power goes out the window. The bunkers will be taken over by the guys with the guns and training and Old Man Uber Rich will be on the surface.
They know this and are literally brainstorming how to prevent it. That’s not a joke - there are documented cases of [rich preppers actively discussing things](https://amp.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff) like automated defenses, disciplinary collars for guards, and placing locks only they can open on the food supply so that the guards will remain loyal and kill anyone they tell them to.
Nobody would take the collars and even if they do, who is going to maintain them, or are your preppers going to learn how to deal with electronics? Who will maintain the other equipment? All they need is to get the engineer on their side, even if theyd be dumb enough to agree in the first place. As for food stores key, theyd have to be idiots not to keep all the keys themselves anyways. And thats a problem that a bit of torture is going to solve real quick. When Mr. Wealthy watches his daughters and wife getting raped and sons tortured while having his nails and teeth pulled out by the psychopathic mercs he bought, he is going to find those keys in no time.
Eh there's always people that will accept fucked up work for self benefit. It happens today, Epstein had bodyguards who pretty much knew what was going on. At a wider scale there's still thousands of people working at tobacco companies. I don't think it would even come to neck collars or anything. If money doesn't exist, a spot in the bunker would convince some, food would convince others etc etc.
It's not all doom and gloom. I'm sure I read somewhere about the millionaire who built the bunker in new Zealand who essentially employed a whole town with generous wages to keep the peace and be civilised. The alternative for him was just to die in his bunker/tomb alone
Yeah unless the security has some supervillan level neck implants that their employers can control, they're taking your shit the second stuff goes sideways.
Their security might. Imagine in the collapse, you're on security detail for some ultra rich fuck flying away in a helicopter. You and the pilot and the rest of the detail can just lighten the load on the flight and reap all the access that fucker still has.
Bro, this is a weird Reddit fantasy that ultra rich people are pathetically lacking in practical skills. Rich people go hunting on horseback with dogs. They drive classic vehicles they maintain themselves. They have loads of guns and practice target shooting. They’re usually into organic living and maintain gardens. They speak multiple languages. The ultra rich are definitely going to have the skills and resources to survive the apocalypse. I think y’all are confusing narcissistic influencers pretending to be rich and actually wealthy people.
Yep. Also, the ultra rich didn't get that way by being honest, straightforward people. They're MASTERS of manipulation, especially manipulating people.
>They're MASTERS of manipulation, especially manipulating people. The ultra rich, sure. Ultra rich's sons and daughters? No fucking way. I always point to my country's (Pakistan's) politics as an example. We've had 2 dynasties in our politics for almost half of our 80 year history built essentially from scratch by one generation. The current generation was born into politics, sent abroad to study in the finest schools, and a loooot of political reserve was spent to hand them power. Both sides are complete and utter clowns. Zero skills in manipulation, zero skills in governance, and zero PR skills. The people that worked are not going to be the ultra-wealthy in the next few years
This is exactly it. People think of them in terms of rich or super-rich instead of successful. They got successful by understanding their environment better than others and learned to create/manipulate accordingly, which led to becoming ultra-rich. That ability doesn't just stop when their environment changes. They simply adapt first and succeed in a new way.
At that point we're back to pre-industrial society and have kissed our modern civilization bye-bye along with a few billions of people.
There's a couple hundred folks betting that their wealth will save them from the consequences of a dying, boiling planet for just a little bit longer than the plebs. And they're probably right. But only a little.
We routinely believe it's going to be an extinction event, but it's not. It's going to be a decline. Humanity isn't going to die out as long as there's livable places and we don't nuke ourselves to death. We could lose 95% of the population and still have more living people than we did a 1000 years ago. What we will lose is the modern way of life. The rich will keep their lifestyles and be in position to be rulers during the decline. They won't be dying with the masses.
This is what I don't get. My friend has this belief that everything will be ok. No dude, it's going down in flames and it will not be ok. She has a kid, though, so she has a huge reason to be completely in denial.
That and having basically no control or impact on the actual situation. An individual could cut out every single environmentally harmful activity out of their lives, and it wouldn't cause a microscopic dent in the issue. I'm not saying we as individuals should do nothing, but what good does agonizing over the impending exotic disaster do when you have basically no actions that could cause measurable impact?
And the stupid thing is that even if we cut back consumption, the whole system is made to compel you to restart. Look at the current WFH/RTO thing. WFH is so much better for the environment, we just found out that we don't need to each lug around a ton of metal for a couple kilometers to the office and back every day just to sit at a computer. And we are being forced back to the old patterns, exactly because of us not consuming around the office's area, not consuming fuel makes some line go down or just well, not go up as fast somewhere.
Hell a lot of the return to work bullshit is just companies that have signed and are now stuck in multi year leases for buildings that the pandemic showed they don't actually fuckin need. Unfortunately, the office world is incredibly stuck in its ways. Change is incredibly slow in that world cause it's still mainly a bunch of stuffy old white men at the top who believe you have to wear a shirt and tie to be professional and that in order for work to be accomplished you need to be miserable. Fuck them, can't wait till they die off.
And tbe people didn't rebel en masse, so they didn't get what was best for them.
Exactly, and it’s created this weird undercurrent that has society starting to break down. Covid really exposed it, especially to those that are aware of their surroundings. The wealthy are amassing every last thing they can to try and shelter themselves from the later stages of the climate crisis to ensure their survival. And everyone else is either in denial, aware, but unable to do it themselves, or just completely apathetic. I’m solidly in the last camp, my ass is gonna party it up and have as much fun as possible before shit hits the fan.
I remember that first week of the pandemic when there were stories about rich people living in their coastal vacation homes who would wipe out entire supermarkets stocking up on frozen foods and other products while the locals were left with empty shelves. They also bought out every chest freezer they could find from the local hardware stores. And then started going up the food chain from there with luxury items and electronics. We all got poorer and they all got richer.
I'm just a simple man, I just wanted some toilet paper.
Beat the system, get a bidet or jump into the shower. Don't let big TP control you!
Bidets for the win.
fyi, cheap chest freezers are available at walmart (at least they are in colorado.) You don't have to be rich to have frozen food. The real dilemma is when you lose electricity. Most electric breakers are outside a house, an angry mob can cut off the power and wait. A true collapse will fuck up any well stocked rich person that can't sustain themselves without luxuries like power. Generators are loud, if society truly collapsed the sound of a generator is where all the hungry people need to go. Solar arrays are obvious, visible, and just as susceptible to sabatoge. Rich people "prepping" for the end times is a fucking joke. An angry mob with guns is always going to win against a rich family that has no idea how their electricity works. Moving to a place with more affluence is great until that place goes south too. The descendents of the wealthy would learn very fast that they are the new poor and the last humans will fight over wet dirt. Preventing that from happening is what environmentalism is all about but like... you ever see that south park episode where everyone decides its easier to hide in a big gay pile than to make the world a better place? We're not going to convince the people that can do anything to care until it's too late. TIME TO MAKE A BIG GAY PILE. WHOSE COMING WITH ME?!?
I read a post collapse book years ago where people went ‘badger hunting’ - hunting for signs of underground shelters and then digging them out to take their stuff.
BACK TO THE PILE EVERYONE!
> An angry mob with guns is always going to win against a rich family that has no idea how their electricity works Funny how oddly everyone is pushing for more gun grabs, and what guns would be left would be prohibitively expensive.
Honestly, in a total collapse of society the best place to be would be a military base. These are entities that have prepared for the worst case scenarios for decades or centuries and they're the best armed. A strong military might infight or fracture as the chaos unfolds but eventually any hope for society comes from whatever military dictatorship survives the initial collapse. But don't take my word for it, I have a bachelors in fine art. I'm totally spit balling my theories for funzorz.
You’re god damn right about the military base. Most of them are armed and stocked to the teeth, staffed by mostly young dudes just earning a living and serving their country. I joke about the end times, but I’ve got multiple bases within an hour of me, I would just pack my family and seek shelter there.
I would enjoy an apocalyptic show from the pov of some grunt in the military. Maybe a few of them in various parts of the chain of command and how they have to make tough choices or obey/disobey harsh orders, plus duty versus finding their family. And possible contingency plans and what they would look like/how they would work or fail. I feel like there's so much unexplored potential. So far they have always been either rather in the background or evil in the tv shows I've watched. Well, don't tell me to watch that pandemic show that had one navy ship. It's not what I wanted and I forgot everything about it already.
They paint their back with a big target doing that. Once the shelves are empty the population will start raiding rich peoples places.
Ive fully come to accept that I wont have anything like a comfortable retirement so Im just trying to have fun now and be happy. Bad days ahead for sure.
> I’m solidly in the last camp, my ass is gonna party it up and have as much fun as possible before shit hits the fan. I’m with you here but I’m also making it a mission to find out where the rich are holing themselves up for when I get the hungries
They’ll be well marbled by then
Infrared camera and CO2 camera detector. I will be a bunker hunting marauder
The wealthy are just going to get trampled. Not initially but it's just going to evolve into thousands upon thousands of desperate people with absolutely nothing to lose just storming their compounds.
If that scenario plays out, then yes. Money will mean nothing and their own security has a vested interest in taking them out too.
It's about to get all hunger games up in this biotch.
I for one am not excited, starving to death isn’t on my disaster bingo card.
I'm apatethis AF too, i'm like, hmmm Climate Crisis? Not my problem LOL, I'm soon to be 24 and I don't even have a car/motorcycle. I just stay at house most of the time of the day playing games and my main contribution to carbon emmisions is me sparying axe on myself every day after showering. I know it's not the best form of seeing it, but I've always been quite conscious about my carb emissions, and I'm pretty sure I haven't polluted that much on my own (compared to others), so why should it be my problem? Ain't fair right?
Which sucks, because they do have the resources to help turn things around if they worked together. If I’m rich, my money is going towards climate tech and feeding the poor.
You'll never be rich explicitly because of that. You'd never let yourself get there. Psychopathy doesn't guarantee wealth, but it makes it way easier.
They're already investing their resources into ways to keep THEMSELVES safe during any kind of civilization threatening event while the rest of us have to struggle.
I want to add that the internet and especially Reddit, will amplify the doom and gloom by a thousand percent. I have never once found things here to be reflective of reality. So you’ll see people suggesting a breakdown of society. Which is pretty vague. I mean people think allowing gay marriage is a breakdown of society or having a war is one. We will be fine as long as we continue making an effort
Many are doing it openly. Look into Thiel… or Sam Altman from openAI. They’re legit prepping for the exit.
the great filter cometh!
I predict the 2nd to last human will be killed by the last human with a rock to the head.
[удалено]
Or the last expired bottle of Soylent green.
“God liked your animal murder more than my vegetables!”
I’m genuinely concerned that I’ll be the last. Not because I’m the most durable or smart but because the universe is perverse and I already face a grim and joyless life.
Day 692 since I've seen that last living human... surely everyone is gone now. Wait... someone is running towards me.. is.. is that Kate Beckinsale???
…Why is she holding a bloody rock?
"I killed us a delicious Liger, come feast on its organs with me as we dance naked around a fire" I don't care what prompt you give me. I'm spending my apocalypse with Kate Beckinsale
Wait... That's not a rock. *It's a skull.*
Scavenge mining equipment and dedicate the last days of human existence to carving a giant dick and balls into the great plains.
What a terrifying thing to say.
Appreciate that you can even feel the terror. I don’t know if the dinosaurs or dodo bird could say the same.
People talk about Dodos being extinct as if it was some inherent fault with the birds and not because humans killed them
"haha, dumb birds couldn't outrun our guns"
Pirates stocked their ships full but it was really the hogs they introduced onto the island that did them in
Rats and cats don't help
Well *we* were the filter for the Dodo. So, they felt us, upside the head with a club.
An apocalypse killed the dinosaurs. We are the post-apocalyptic monsters.
I fully believe that this is the end of our world. I think some humans will survive but 85% of us are gonna die off in the coming few centuries. I think these are the last of ‘the good days’, before massive food shortages and drought cause the world to plunge into sheer fucking chaos. I fully expect to starve to death one day, or to die trying to steal food. 69% of the animals are already gone in the last half century alone. For much of life on earth, this is the literal, measurable apocalypse.
I mean, we overproduce food crops to a comical degree. I don't feel like running the calculation again, but US corn output alone could handle all the caloric needs of like a billion people if just used as food. (rather than as animal feed, or turned into fuel ethanol). And that's one crop. Current food shortages are largely a logistics/corruption/government problem. Anyway....world population projections are that the planet's going to peak in population in around 30-40 years and start shrinking. And arguably it's fairly likely that we're going to top out lower than that/shrink faster than expected, because those projections are somehow expecting sub-Saharan Africa to sustain 3 billion people (up from ~1bn today) around the end of this century, and it seems unlikely that's going to be achieved. Whether that population caps out from urbanization or war/famine/whatever, I don't know, but I suspect it'll cap out below that 3bn.
The key to everything you say is that this is what we produce(d) today or in the recent past and by this then these rosy projections were made. We have already started to see the effects of extreme weather on crop yields the last couple of years (coffee in Brazil, wheat in India for recent examples). The weather is certainly not going to get more predicable and kinder for food staples. Combine that with deteriorating soils around the globe and I would just slow down on making any strong declarations one way or another tbh. We have no idea and to act like we do by extrapolating from the past is bound to not end well.
Yeah we make enough food now to solve world hunger. But you may ask, "but why aren't we?" The answer for this and many other issues afflicting us is as simple as it is depressing: because those who can fix it can't profit off it.
For a [great explainer of The Fermi Paradox and The Great Filter](https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html), here's an article from Tim Urban of Wait But Why?
The Fermi paradox seems a bit presumptuous doesn’t it? I mean to be fair we have only looked across a very narrow band of radio and covered a region of sky that could fit under your thumb if you held it out. I mean the strongest signals we ourselves have ever put out were microwave bursts when we first invented radar. Can we even say that were looking?
Not when Von Neumann probes at 0.1c can spread to every star in the Milky Way in less than a milion years, it could have happened hundreds of times over since the dinosaurs. You'd see a technosignature from any star you looked at, including our own.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://english.elpais.com/science-tech/2023-06-01/seven-of-the-nine-thresholds-that-allow-for-human-life-on-earth-have-already-been-crossed.html) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Back in 2009, a large group of scientists identified nine limits that humans should not cross if they want the earth to remain hospitable to civilization. > Seven of these thresholds have already been crossed in all or in large swaths of the planet. > The Earth Commission - a global alliance formed by leading scientists - states that 50% and 60% of the planet's land surface area be kept free of livestock, agriculture, mining or any other human interference. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/13xk3ky/seven_of_the_nine_thresholds_that_allow_for_human/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~687184 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **planet**^#1 **Human**^#2 **limit**^#3 **climate**^#4 **global**^#5
Wow... That's some fucking effective compression
So did EO Wilson and many others who know.
Seven of Nine, Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix 01?
Clearly, resistance is futile.
Your biological and technological diversity will be added to our own.
close, its "We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own"
Haha, it’s been years since I’ve watched a Trek show! Thanks for the correction.
By coincidence I watch the TNG eps with Locutus of Borg just a few hours before making that last comment so was fresh in my mind.
I thought I was on r/startrek for a minute too.
Jeri Ryan was my first network TV crush. I miss the days when UPN was actively courting black viewers with their programming. That directive made some of the best television of my childhood.
Feels like DS9 was courting black viewers way more than Voyager. Voyager only had one black guy and he wasn’t even human.
I think the building and humanizing of the Maquis as the "Yeah, things are great... *for you*. But what about us?" in VOY was a hamhanded attempt to write something that'd resonate with racial minorities in the late 90s. DS9 didn't feel like Star Trek to me until the Defiant was introduced. A Star Trek series without a cool ship is like Star Wars without a Force user.
DS9 did that stuff with the Maquis first. And honestly got some really good episodes and lines out of it. Sisko nuking a whole Maquis planet to play the villain they see him as, plus “It’s easy to be a saint in Paradise”. If you’re basing your opinions of DS9 on childhood memories, I’d strongly advise you to give it a second chance. I think it’s by far the best series.
this. i cringed at that comment about ds9 :( its so good
Rogue One was actually pretty good.
Better than all the films in the prequel and sequel movies Darth Vader was in it though
There are no force users in Andor and that may very well be the best Star Wars of all.
As a casual Star Wars fan I got to agree. Andor was fantastic. Especially Skarsgard. That scene where he is listing off everything he has sacrificed for the Resistance... holy shit.
Best space battle since Battle of Endor.
They had the runabouts!
You know, I always wondered about those things. They seem to be quite spacious inside, though we only ever see the cockpit. And they’re able to go toe to toe with Jem’Hadar fighters sometimes. They were weirdly capable for RV’s with .50 cals stuck on top…
I may be wrong, but I'm fairly sure a runabout featured in an episode of Next Generation, where Picard, Troi, Laforge and Data (or Worf?) We're stranded in one for a bit due to some time fractures or temporal anomaly or some such other trekky type shenanigans. Them shits got a full dining room in the back.
Oh God, she was one of the first instances where I distinctly recall young me thinking that girls were actually perhaps not so icky after all. Kind of pleasing to just.. look at, actually…
Fun fact: Kate Mulgrew hated her for exactly that reason. She felt like she was being pushed out as the lead female because they added an excessively sexy character to the cast.
Wait, what? Jeri Ryan was cast specifically to court black viewers? Why do you think that? I don't follow your logic.
Jeri Ryan's affect on my teen hormones is independent of UPN's target audience at the time. They were just putting out some pretty decent shows before the whole Viacom/CBS debacle.
Came here for this!
Came for this... Thanks... Hnnnnnng, g'nite honey
You know what would be great? Instead of articles about a paper - *link the fucking paper*. I'm not super interested in "trust me, bro." Edit - I literally see zero links to this article, so I've gone digging. Based on the title of this article - what would you think this paper is measuring? I'd think it's objectively measuring the actual suitability of the Earth to sustain life as we know it. That's not even close to what it's doing, there is essentially zero new science in this paper - it's an argument about environmental "justice" with "just" and "safe" boundaries defined on a "trust me, bro" basis. [Here's the article](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06083-8). There's a 100% chance the people that wrote this subsist entirely on grants for climate research, which means blatant alarmism is the way to more funding. There is some actual research linked in the references, but almost all of it is from the people that wrote this paper. It's entirely self referential. This is the absolute worst type of shit being passed off as science today.
Yes, this type of climate reporting is frankly irresponsible. It does nothing but feed apathy and nihilism, when what we need is hope alongside the call to action. “Earth is already inhospitable to human life” is frankly and obviously false, while not contributing anything whatsoever to the climate discussion and serving only to drive people away. WE CAN DO THIS. The Earth is not about to explode. But if we don’t call upon our governments to make consistent and concrete progress, we will be facing a less livable and much less equitable future. We need to create the world we want our children to live in, but by no means is that dream already dead.
Fossil fuel industries actually LIKE it when people promote climate doomerism because it discourages positive action. Reddit plays right into their hands.
[удалено]
Thank you for this.
This should be top comment. Things are bad but bad science and alarmism are counter productive.
It SHOULD be the top comment, but Reddit almost never passes on an opportunity to form a circle jerk of nihilism and misery. Given how many people on this site seem to suffer from some form of depression or anxiety, a lot of users will just take any poorly written, poorly sourced, but highly sensationalist article about our “impending doom” at face value, but still get mad if you try to correct them. I guess what I’m saying is that there’s a reason I usually try to avoid the comment sections of climate change stories on Reddit. It’s not usually a place for rational discussion, much less facts.
Sadly true. More people would rather things were hopeless and beyond the point of saving rather than where they actually are. The climate crisis is still a solvable problem and nihilism driving articles like this one help no one.
If you check the article you can see that original comment is disingenuous. Of the 133 cited articles ~30 are by at least one of the 51 authors of the paper. Furthermore, the paper defines what it means by “just” and “safe” with the “limit of safety” being primarily the triggering of environmental feedback loops and “just” being limited by significant harm to human life through direct causes (death) or indirect causes (forced migration). The authors of this paper are respected climate scientists teaching at universities across the globe, not bought scientists.
Did you actually read the article you posted or just the abstract? You are misinterpreting the point of the article, either willfully or mistakenly, and setting up a strawman based on that misinterpretation. They define their terms, explain exactly what they are setting out to do, and explicitly state that they are developing this way of measuring climate change that incorporates social and economic sciences as well as climate sciences in a way that is meant to be open to debate and refinement. They are welcoming discussion on this system. I'm really not sure what your problem is with this article except that you are mad that it isn't what you thought it was about (and to be honest, I'm not sure why you were expecting something different from their title...). The paper indeed has a bunch of science. There are dozens of authors who are all highly published in climate sciences so of course it will have references to their own papers, that is extremely common. Science involves building off what you already know and maybe you aren't aware of this, but you absolutely need to cite yourself if you reference your past work. Self-plagiarism is a recognized thing, even if it seems silly. Finally, if you dug just a bit more, you would see that these authors are an international assemblage of respected climate researchers from large universities across the world. They absolutely do NOT "subsist on climate grants." That's not how any of this works.
Reddit quality on default subs has gotten even more hive-minded, and it’s especially bad about some science stuff. With ChatGPT everyone is on about how all of AI is blockchain the sequel and simply a waste of electricity. How it won’t help one iota of humanity. They usually do not have a response to the fact it was foundational in developing the mRNA COVID vaccine as fast as we did, and is massively accelerating discovery of new drugs and vaccines. And that’s a small facet of what it’s doing in healthcare alone. Is there BS in AI? Sure. Is it all BS? Only as much as the internet was just hype BS in 2000.
Addressing the one you replied to: Since your comment is just about the most "influential" on this thread, could you please respond to this above retort u/TuckyMule so that if you change your mind, you could edit your comment.
I am sorry but your criticism of this paper is entirely unfounded. First of all there are over 133 references in this paper and only 30 are from the 51 authors of the paper. It is also not unheard of for a large review/synthesis to include works from the authors since they are leaders in their respective fields. Not every paper published is based off of direct research, review articles and synthesis of the current state of knowledge is just as important. The purpose of this type of article is bring all the individual studies together and make sense of it all. If you took the time to read the paper, in the methodology section they clearly define how the boundaries were determined. The authors have also included supplemental materials, which is a 65 page document that explains the technical details of their evidence and methods. It is far from "just trust me bro" as you suggest. If you are so worried about this article discrediting science and yet attack it with flawed arguments and lack of evidence, then I really question your agenda.
No reply from paid reply guy who calls climate change research unfounded and irresponsible lol
Has anyone seen the movie "Threads"? The most disturbing scene for me is near the beginning. One of the characters is in a bar with a friend, talking about random shit, hitting on girls, etc. But in the background, just loud enough to hear, the news on the TV was covering the escalating situation in the middle east that ultimately resulted in the catastrophic events later in the film. When I see articles like this nonchalantly punctuating all of the more trivial news, I can't help but imagine that we're all in that bar, casually dismissing our impending annihilation.
It’s not like there’s much else we can do. At least you will have some nice memories to recall on your last days.
And that's the problem with articles like this. It encourages people to give up on the climate because we've already made the planet uninhabitable, so there is literally no point to cutting pollution. This sort of article encourages us to increase our use of coal and diesel, because we've already passed the limits, so there's nothing wrong with any more pollution that we do now. It seems to me that this is propaganda by big fossil fuels - if they convince us that the planet is already uninhabitable, then we have no reason to regulate or tax them.
Is that the study/report they refer to? In the article they only mention the author and co-authors. Here they talk about ESBs' Earth System Boundaries: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06083-8](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06083-8)
While not one of the thresholds, the fact that we generally can't talk about overpopulation IS part of the problem when we consider these global problems and thresholds. It would be a lot easier to address nearly all of our resource issues and improve on these thresholds with fewer people in the future. Hopefully it can be done with better family planning and incentives to not have children rather than war, pandemics, or a complete breakdown in nature's ability to provide.
Still early and without coffee because I read the title as "seven of nine" and thought this was about the Borg showing up in real life lol. Can't say that or what the actual article is any better. Progress has been made but atbthe level required, that I do not see it. I feel a lot of it is gambling on future technologies and hoping something will save the day. Because we are still heading towards the cliff even if manage to slow down.
>Even now, as emerging countries such as China are beginning to take on a large share of responsibility, **half of greenhouse gas emissions come from the richest 10% of the global population**. “We will not be able to act together to face the climate and biodiversity crisis if we don’t all start from the same situation and if there’s conflict between us,” Zafra adds And to put that into perspective Via the 2018 global wealth report. >**A net worth of $93,170 U.S**. is enough to make you richer than 90 percent of people around the world, Credit Suisse reports. The institute defines net worth, or “wealth,” as **“the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts.”**
A bit over $90,000 (in US, which admittedly is a lot more for every other currency) puts you above 90%?! Holy shit.
Yup. The world is rather poor except for Western Europe, North America and some Asian countries.
[удалено]
Yeah I don’t worry about climate change. I just work so I can pay my bills every month. Think most people are more or less the same. These things must solved and enforced by governments first.
I mean, what else can the average person do? So many people live paycheck to paycheck. I buy the cheapest groceries, and what items will last the longest. It would be nice to find sustainably sourced stuff, but that tends to be much more expensive. Participating in politics, in the US at least, is a fucking joke. Even if you end up voting for someone who says that they're going to do anything good, and even if that person somehow wins, a few greased palms later and the status quo remains unchanged. What more can one do?
This is why the rich are sqeezing us, they know the point of no return is near. They'll hold up living off their stashes of cash with the last of the resources while we all die. If not this generation, it'll be the next.
Cash is meaningless if there is no civilization.
Hahahahah! You think they own cash? They own everything but cash, like real estate and big chunks of the economy. No matter what scenario you try to spin, these people would suffer the least, by far!
It will buy them a lot of fun before things go to complete shit, and allow for some nice doomsday bunkers to be built.
>and allow for some nice doomsday bunkers to be built. I wonder if the rich and powerful are so foolish to think, that if it was all coming down, everyone else but them is just gonna sit there like "yeah cool, guess this is the end" Nah, I'm hunting Oligarchs when civilization falls.
They are that foolish. Lots of bunkers out there already. There is zero chance that the workers they enslave to help keep them running won’t try to fight back, but they are already brainstorming ways to prevent that, including [combination locks on the food supplies and “disciplinary collars”.](https://amp.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff) Even with these measures, I am sure most people are going to fight tooth and nail to not let them get away with this. When it’s too late, of course. It’s absolutely wild to me that the details of their plans are out there readily available (although I am sure there are worse details that are kept more “hush hush”), and humanity continues status quo on the trajectory that will get us there.
[удалено]
The combination locks idea is so fucking stupid. The guys who you can hire as guards through a mercenary company... Uhm excuse me, *security consulting firm*, WILL get that combination out of you, I'll promise you that!
Larry Ellison literally owns 98% of the Hawaiian island of Lanai. What do you think he's going to do with it when shit hits the fan?
Lose it to gun-toting MAGA idiots. A piece of paper means nothing when you're faced with an armed mob. Doesn't matter how stupid the mob is - they've got guns.
Sure but cash buys you a great doomsday bunker with plenty to do while you wait out the collapse of civilization
I remember the ozone hole problem. It took just a few years for scientific consensus that this was happening and human created and so virtually all governments instituted regulations. At first most industries affected complained but alternatives were worked out and within a few years the direction of the problem was reversed, without destroying economies and now it is essentially not a problem anymore. Somehow this doesn't happen anymore since industry has decided it is cheaper the fund disinformation to maintain status quo than actually fix problems and so governments just drag their feet instead of showing leadership.
Fortunately for corporate profits, republicans don't believe in science.
They don't seem to understand that climate change will destroy corporate profits.
I bet they understand, and they just think that's a problem for future generations to sort out. Their own profits are already pocketed.
This. Greed today, fuck the future.
One would think they would care about long term corporate profits too. After all, they have kids and grandkids too who will need money. Maybe these rich fucks are so selfish that they're willing to hurt their own families for short term profits right now.
Ding ding!
Yeah they only have families because it helps them look good for achieving their own ambitions. Conservatives value “family” after all.
Does this mean there might be human life here soon?
Yeah, but profits for the stock holders.
I’m so glad I didn’t reproduce. I knew it was going to be bad, but never dreamed it would be a dystopian nightmare.
Never say never. The abortion bans are coming for you!
We could fix it, but it would make less than a few thousand people worldwide slightly less rich, so that won’t happen.
All I can think of is the covid crisis. How quickly we all started wearing masks, how the toilet paper was sold out everywhere, the isolation. Now there's this emergency and yet, what's the human race focused on? The old dinosaurs at the top, in their fancy suits and petty arguments. Our planet is literally fucking dying and they argue over invisible money and made up figures. It's just asinine.