People think it’s gonna be fun, like Zombieland. Instead, it’s going to be fun, like The Road.
Societal collapse, eh? Sounds like a great opportunity for profit!!!
Imagine how much ACs we could sell! And how expensive we could make food!
I really have to slow down on Armored Core, I thought you were talking about selling everyone mechs for a minute
I like that idea for our timeline better.
a bit late for that when society is turning to fascism all over the world.
Good ol’ fascism! You can always count on fascism to to help people. Well, the right people. I mean, some of the right people, maybe a small subset of the right people.
An ever increasingly small subset of the right people because Fascism requires there to ALWAYS be an other to blame it on.
Fascism saved my buddy’s life in 'Nam, maaaaan.
We’re moving back to office until we can’t move at all.
What a time to be alive!
I’d say the ones who have been saying it’s not real should be the first to become soylent green
:shocked-picachu:
That’s unfortunate because I have been trying really hard to participate in society.
We can’t even figure out how to not have half our society be rasict, how the hell are we gonna save a whole planet from our fuckery?
We’re not gonna be able to combat climate change under capitalism anyway. The number one thing we need to do is to produce less but that goes directly against what capitalism needs to function. Not to mention that governments are bribed by companies to make laws in their favour.
But hey, what’s the point of saving our planet anyway if we can’t maximize profits anymore?
Yep. And if you mention this, you’re a commie and capitalism is the greatest thing ever and under socialism we will all starve and have nothing and it never worked look at Cuba.
Like capitalism works, and there are no imaginable alternatives.
Just don’t use resources to produce that much useless crap to just dump it in a landfill or burn it? Is it so hard to understand?
Damn right I’m a commie.
It’s working great in cuba. Best health care in the world too.
The problems in Cuba are all tied directly to us sanctioning them to try and destroy their economy
Removed by mod
We do what the British did with Australia, but with mars.
Send Elon and all the maga weirdos to the red place and we can begin following the plot of the expanse.
Like it should be.
We cant even figure out how to make recycling work.
Recycling was never supposed to work alone. It was literally the last ditch effort after Reduce and Reuse.
Also, we already figured out how to make it work, but it isn’t profitable when it works, so obviously we have to use the less effective methods so that a small handful of big wigs can milk the process for personal gain.
We could but it’s not profitable enough for corporations.
Bold of you to assume that most people even want that. From what I can tell…
There are a large number of people out there who seem to be deliberately making it worse - not even for profit, but just out of spite.
Tbf, I think a certain minimum amount of intelligence is required to even qualify for that statement, which I suspect disqualifies most… but yeah, underneath that, there do seem to be a few, like Jeff Bezos.
Though Donald Trump himself I see more like a monkey doing its thing, as much a symptom as a feed-forward cause of his own. I ain’t saying that he’s not “evil” in his own way, just that he lacks sufficient character for his brand of it to have had any effect at all, if it weren’t for the fact that the systems were so broken to begin with. Money (his father’s in his case) corrupts.
We don’t and we won’t.
Removed by mod
Humanity is fucked. My sympathy lies with the animals.
I sympathize with the children that had nothing to do with it.
It’s why I’m not having kids.
So you won’t feel guilty for not fighting for a better world?
That is such a needlessly abusive thing to say to a person.
Choosing not to have a child because you don’t believe the problems you’d be subjecting them to are likely to be solved is a heavy choice to make, and says nothing about whether they’re fighting climate change to whatever extent they’re able
Please don’t go around being a complete asshole for no reason. The space we have here in the fediverse is only as nice as we make it, and assuming the worst of people we’ve literally never met accomplishes less than nothing.
This was not an abusive statement, and I’m sorry if you feel that it was. I don’t believe that choosing not to have children because of climate change was made with a lot of deliberation, but because it’s the laziest choice. Children are tough. Fighting for change is tough. Convincing other to give a fuck about the environment is tough. It’s easier just to keep on keeping on and when the world breaks at least I didn’t create another soul who is going to go through pain.
This attitude doesn’t help fix the current situation and I believe that the apathy such a decision makes encourages people to be inactive on climate change.
Not having children is one of the easiest ways to contribute to solving climate change, which is exactly why we should encourage it regardless of whether the person is also taking other steps to solve it (which we don’t know). Not having a child also saves 58 tons of CO2 emissions per year, so it’s one of the most effective things you can do to fight climate change too, so that simple action does a lot to fight for a better world.
Source: https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children
You don’t know this person. And you don’t know anything about what they’re doing to combat climate change, or are capable of doing to contribute to combating climate change.
You don’t even know whether this was the only consideration in choosing not to have kids.
You know nothing about them, but the way your comment reads suggests that you’re essentially insinuating that their choice to not have kids is illegitimate by nature of the motives you presume they have (which isn’t a kind thing to do) and also that they’ve made that choice out of laziness. All based on assumptions you’ve made from the single sentence comment they left on a Lemmy thread.
It’s possible that was intended as a sincere question, but it reads as SUCH a heavily loaded question that it will be understood to be an accusation by pretty much anyone who reads it, which is why I call it abusive. And you can tell that that’s what it’s communicating by the fact that my comment saying as much has been upvoted repeatedly in the short period it’s been up. The question mark reads as rhetorical, and even if you meant to ask in order to get them to reflect, it’s unlikely you know them well enough or expressed that intention well enough for it to not just read as someone being a jerk on the internet
I can absolutely empathize with the idea that it is easier to check out and want to live small than to fight. And I can certainly understand wanting to fight back when you perceive that others are doing that, because our future is all on the line. I just left a long comment about it on another thread where I shared some quotes I found validating or poinant with respect to my struggle to keep fighting for things bigger than myself when I can barely function.
I get that it’s important for people to fight, but what you said to them kinda sucks, and isn’t a good way to engage with someone you don’t know at all.
Edit: adjusted to reflect the fact I also made assumptions in the initial version of this comment. Apologies if parts feel out of sync, I’m editing this while fairly sleep deprived.
You’re a good person who seems able to see both points of an argument. Thank you. You’re right, I don’t know the person who said they wouldn’t have children. They had a quick quip and I had a quick quip too and didn’t really want to get into my argument.
Comments like “That’s why I’m not having children” get positive upvote and attention, but it could have been “And that’s why I’m ready to fight for climate change so that there’s a future for humanity”. To me it is a statement of surrender and being proud of essentially waiting for the end of the world, which tells me a bit more about the person making the statement.
Anyway, I didn’t realize my initial comment would come off that negatively and I’ll try to be more respectful.
Removed by mod
Not having children is obviously not a societal change that everybody can do, otherwise humanity would fail. I’m not saying everybody should be having 10 children, but there’s nothing wrong with having a couple.
The point I’ve been trying to make is that I’m worried that people who see that not having children is the easiest thing you can do to lower your carbon footprint will not care about doing anything else to help save the planet. You’ve done your part, so why not drive that gas guzzler for a little longer. Probably not gonna hurt you too much. I think more people will think this way than people who responsibly have children and have a physical reminder of why they’re trying to care about the future.
And thanks for labelling me in an out group. Be careful, you’re probably very suseptible to extremism.
You’re a moron if you think bringing more people into the world is fighting for a better world
That’s all of us unless you’re an executive in a multinational corp, or work for the oil and gas industry.
We’ve all been ramrodded into this reality by a handful of giant Corporations, over the last 100 years.
Yeah I agree. But I could have chosen more fuel efficient cars when I was younger. Bought less shit I didn’t need. I could’ve done more. Yeah it’s not entirely my fault, we’ve been thrown into the gauntlet, what can you do if you wanna live? But the children born now, or God forbid even later are going to find themselves in a hellscape of an economy and ecosystem. And my heart goes out to them because they’ll get less than I had, less freedom, less upward mobility, less drinkable water, less food, less breathable air, and be more fucked by everything. The longer we push it, the worse it gets for the people who had less to do with it.
If it helps to assuage your guilt at all, we have been living, inundated with corporate propaganda, for all our lives.
“Carbon footprint” is a great example; it’s a Corporate guilt trip.
Oh absolutely. The carbon footprint was bullshit from the oil companies to put the onus on individuals to fix it while not giving people any options. It was all bullshit. That being said, I do have some guilt. Or at least feel it. Less because I was making bad decisions and more of a “survivors guilt” kind of thing. That’s not the right term, cause I’m going to die before the younger generations. But I feel guilt just because my child and millions of others will get a worse and worse end of the stick than I got just because of when they were born. This is why I argue with boomers about the difference between generations.
Like, you had the American dream fucking handed to you. Do you not feel some kind of guilt for getting a degree for $8k, a house for $35k, and a top of the line vette costing $4.5k? Even at the lower rates of pay, that’s a fraction of the budget compared to today. If I had it that easy, I would absolutely feel bad for people coming up behind me. And yet, VERY few boomers acknowledge this, and that is why I’m so hostile to them.
Respectfully, carbon footprint as a measure is just a measurement and is really useful in the right context. It’s important to remember that it’s the misapplication to individuals that is a con game.
When Rees and Wackernagel came up with ecological footprint as a measure, it introduced a systems analysis to human activity that we really needed. Carbon footprint is just a subset of that and ignoring it is futile. Just apply the analysis where it matters: militaries, mining, transport, energy, civil engineering, etc etc.
“Generation Me” will never cop to their culpability. They’re narcissists, ie to admit being wrong now would absolutely crumple their sense of identity. And we all know Boomers #1 rule is looking out for numero uno.
I’m not saying all Boomers are Captain Planet villains…but all Captain Planet villains were definitely Boomers.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Animals are fucked! We decimated 75% of wildlife in 50 years, and it is still growing
If only we’d only “decimated” wildlife. Alas.
growing
Dwindling?
You understood me, the extinct part is growing
Gotcha
They’ll be fine 100 years after we’re extinct.
Removed by mod
Let me introduce you the crown of creation: the cockroach.
Removed by mod
Interesting, I just meant that cockroaches are nearly indestructible and will survive humanity. But I do agree with your first sentence.
Because most of us are relatively comfy and we’re so focused on surviving the day, week, or month (if you’re really lucky), that we don’t have time to even consider the effort needed to organize and focus on overthrowing those in power. The system working as designed.
Removed by mod
Or instead of saving the world you and your group fail, your group is now considered terrorists, and the knee jerk reaction of those in power removes more of the people’s freedoms and oppresses them more, all in an effort to ensure that little uprising doesn’t happen again.
I agree something needs to be done, but it’ll have to be done with elections and legislation that protects that progress from being dismantled by the next party that might not agree with that change.
Sustainable change is a slow process. Sometimes that process is so slow you might not see the results in your lifetime.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
gestures broadly
🤨
societal collapse
Ah yes, that thing that has us laboring to chase meaningless plastic crap we’re brainwashed into needing instead of growing our own food and maintaining our own shelters as small, purposeful communities, all so the owners of this society can siphon our energy while poisoning the earth, all to live like wannabe gods above us.
No more penis Space tourist rockets? What a loss…
I dont think you would like what comes after societal collapse. It’s easy to pin society as just capitalism, but collapse will mean more than just the economic system. Democracies will collapse and entire regions will cease to exist. Food scarcity and mass migration will result in extreme regimes that will defend their territory, and a bunch of nomads who have to live with the constant worry of where the next food and freshwater source is. Not to mention the constant fighting over geopolitical issues (imagine current day scaled up exponentially)
Yes, we should fix our economic system, but societal collapse is not an end result we ever want.
Suffering I fear, death I welcome.
I know, we all weep for our poor capitalist lords :c
/s
We didn’t start the fire…
You know what would be useful in a societal collapse? Electric vehicles and solar panels.
Hopefully peppers aren’t building zombie busses because they’ll be useless in 6 months after the oil stops flowing.
An ev with a charger panel and bicycles will be useful indefinitely.
When society collapses, upwards of around 95-100% of us die. That’s reality.
I’ll probably be one of them.
Me too
Being old looks rough anyway.
Solar panels and batteries require massive supply chains. They require our rarest minerals and highest tech, with highly educated workers to develop and produce and state of the art clean rooms and factories.
If we stop producing them, the current stock will be useful for like 50 years tops. Then it’s back to fossil fuels, I’m afraid. Diesel generators last for a long time, and they’re easier to maintain and produce.
I remember i read a doomer theory stating we should be stockpiling coal for the humans that remain to rebuild society since there is nothing we can do at this point and fossil fuels is the only thing that will outlast the collapse. I’m not that pessimistic, but i can see what they mean.
The doomer theory variation I read is that we’ve played out most of the accessible fossil fuels. If society has to rebuild, they have no way to get past the stage of fossil fuel use, because advanced extraction like fracking would not be possible. The very things that made our society possible, are bridges were burning as soon as we cross them. There is no rebuilding
Lol, Diesel can on average only be stored for 6 to 12 months before degrading. Good luck with that.
If a collapse ever happens I’d rather have solar panels and an EV. Fuel production and transport would instantly grind to a halt and the existing fuel goes bad soon after.
Yeah, it’s true diesel degrades quickly, but oil does not. Depending on where you live, you could more quickly set up a low scale refinery than a solar panel manufacturing workshop. Most likely, people would use coal in most places without access to oil in short distance since it’s more widely available and simpler to use.
Mate, we are talking about a societal collapse. You won’t have oil available and you won’t be able to refine your own diesel at home (especially without energy).
Your argument about solar panels being difficult to produce is utterly out of place. Your diesel generator and your car are more difficult to produce, but you already own them from before the downfall. So if you own an EV and you own solar panels then it doesn’t matter how difficult those are to produce when you’re just using them.
I wasn’t talking about making diesel at home. That’s pretty much the immediate aftermath of a collapse.
In the case of a societal collapse, eventually, new city states will be formed using salvaged technology and eventually technology produced of their own. My argument stands that to restart civilization, you will more quickly go back to fossil fuels, which are simpler to salvage, manufacture and utilize than high tech solar panels and batteries.
This includes gas vehicles. It’s just a fact that electric vehicles and semiconductor technology are luxuries of the modern era and not long term post apocalyptic tools of survival due to their manufacturing difficulties, durability and maintenance necessities. Just as an example you have Toyotas from the 60s that can still work just fine and i guarantee you a Tesla made today won’t work in 60 years, unless you replace nearly every electronic component of which it depends.
I’m all for renewables and sustainability and ditching fossel fuels, but from an engineering point of view, i just don’t think I’d be trusting in electrical vehicles and semiconductor tech in a post apocalyptic scenario. The reliability just isn’t there.
And diesel generators/fuel refining is most definitely not more difficult to manufacture than semiconductors. Just to make a simple silicon wafer you need more tech than to make a piston engine. Let alone doping it to produce enough photoelectric effect to power stuff with. There’s a reason we more quickly figured out diesel/gasoline engines than semiconductors. You need clean rooms, high tech engineers and a lot of robotics for things we can’t do with enough precision with our big clunky hands at the nano scale. With piston engines a workshop will do and fuel refining is just basic fractional distillation. As a side note, i could most definitely refine diesel at home. I’ve distilled things more complicated than diesel. But that’s beside the point. I understand you meant the average person with no training wouldn’t be able to do it and i understand and agree.
Gas only lasts like 6 months before expiring. It can be stabilized to last a couple of years, but within 3-5 years all existing gas would be unusable (as far as I understand it).
Running a solar system past its ideal life when it holds even 20% of a charge and has lower efficiency is better than nothing.
“We don’t know who struck first, us or them. But we do know it was us that scorched the sky…”
batteries die
“Well, shit.”
you would get murdered for those rather quickly, i’d imagine. what would be useful is to get far away from strangers somewhere defendable near fresh water.
Maybe. I’ve wondered about that. It’s easy to imagine a Mad Max scenario with bands of raiders looting all potentially useful technological remains, but does solar change that? You can’t as easily steal that without destroying it. You can’t just put it to use without some technical knowledge. It’s not immediately useful to loot.
Destroy, sure.
That would be only one of the many competing reasons for my murder.
I do have camping gear, woodworking hand tools, a good bike, I know how to shoot and clean fish+game and cook, and I have knowledge of some remote areas with sparse populations including their flora.
On paper it all sounds good, but I would likely die miserably in the first Canadian winter.
Even if you did everything right there isn’t that much wildlife to live off of. A single human requires a vast healthy wilderness to live off of foraging only.
Yeah, I watch Alone and I’ve seen Outlast. No way are 99% of people going to be able to live like that. Even the contestants who prep and practice and research only last a few weeks in the winter.
You would need a small community, agriculture and to store your food for winter, and livestock for reliable protein. Even then there’s a good chance you get wiped out by diseases unless you’re making soap and prepping food and water safely.
But once you’ve figured out a way to store food and resources, then you’re a target. You can’t easily defend against bands of looters with tons of weapons and nothing to lose
I generally never last very long in a playthrough of The Long Dark
win win.
That’s why Musk is backing Trump and Putin and trying to turn the world into Thunderdome. EVs will reign supreme.
Pretty sure Thunderdome itself hit the nail on the head with Methane cars, easier and more sustainable than either EG or ICE.
Don’t worry, we’ll fix climate change by reflecting sunlight before it hits the Earth’s surface. Of course this will eradicate most pests (and nature) but hey, problem solved!
That’s old news, no? I recall reading that basically from 2°C there is no more economic growth, what means a lot of people are thrown under the bus. From 3°C there is no more economy, meaning no food, heating, fighting everywhere. From 4°C there is basically no more humanity.
That sounds pretty extreme. I’d be Interested in reading that article, if you can find it.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/
I’m looking at the Full Volume, and on page 71 you can see
With about 2°C warming, climate-related changes in food availability and diet quality are estimated to increase nutrition-related diseases and the number of undernourished people, affecting tens (under low vulnerability and low warming) to hundreds of millions of people (under high vulnerability and high warming) … Climate change risks to cities, settlements and key infrastructure will rise sharply in the mid and long term with further global warming, especially in places already exposed to high temperatures, along coastlines, or with high vulnerabilities (high confidence).
At global warming of 3°C, additional risks in many sectors and regions reach high or very high levels, implying widespread systemic impacts, irreversible change and many additional adaptation limits (see Section 3.2) (high confidence). For example, very high extinction risk for endemic species in biodiversity hotspots is projected to increase at least tenfold if warming rises from 1.5°C to 3°C (medium confidence). Projected increases in direct flood damages are higher by 1.4 to 2 times at 2°C and 2.5 to 3.9 times at 3°C
Global warming of 4°C and above is projected to lead to far-reaching impacts on natural and human systems (high confidence). Beyond 4°C of warming, projected impacts on natural systems include local extinction of ~50% of tropical marine species (medium confidence) and biome shifts across 35% of global land area (medium confidence). At this level of warming, approximately 10% of the global land area is projected to face both increasing high and decreasing low extreme streamflow, affecting, without additional adaptation, over 2.1 billion people (medium confidence) and about 4 billion people are projected to experience water scarcity (medium confidence). At 4°C of warming, the global burned area is projected to increase by 50 to 70% and the fire frequency by ~30% compared to today
However, if you really want to get into it, you can read the Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Full Report. It has a lot more details about the effects of climate change on all parts of the world, but it’s also a 3,000 page pdf.
It’s mild hyperbole, but it’s not far off from best-guess speculation. It’s well and regularly covered in IPCC reports. Have at.
One of the counterproductive parts of projections like this is humans do poorly with long term thinking. These results are not immediate. Most people will just assume hyperbole when they see it not happen*
- in an arbitrarily short time
