We're Already Colonizing Another Planet, U Ready for Hot Earth?

[Tiwack]

Thanks for conceding.

Why do you think governments and businesses aren't made up of people just like you and I? Any change starts with yourself. Eat and do what you want, you stereotype others at your own cost.

[Nymfomania]

Doesnt feel any hotter to me. Actually a little chilly today.

I know right? I could use a little climate change so i can take my hoodie off.


On a side note, i have a 2019 bolt EV not because it helps the environment, but because electric is cheaper.

[Dhrizzle]

Y-you forget that they also have a few solar panels. T-that makes it all better.

Yeah, if people continue to obfuscate like this, we'll never get anything done. But keep continuing to screech at the common guy that he should stop using a fan or some shit because the world is burning. Lol, it's a joke.

Yet here you are screeching about China when let's face it, a lot of their pollution is probably generated making products for other, developed nations. And those corporations you're screeching about are probably making products for people too so whilst you might be happy screeching that i-it's all those b-bad corportation a-and other c-countries the fact is most pollution is being generated for consumers, either directly for power and transport of indirectly for products.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

Yes. His little saving on energy is going to save the world. I know this narrative makes you feel good inside, but if you wanna do something about the world burning, stop focusing on John who likes his fan a little. Maybe try to focus on big companies and countries that pollute as much as the rest of the world combined.

Psst, Einstein. No one was talking about "John."

We're talking about the morons who say we shouldn't do anything because nothing is going to happen in the "next 12 years." So why bother to enact change at all? It's not going to affect him, and apparently not you either, so fuck the planet. Keep voting for people like Trump and other morons like these people. Burn that coal, baby!

I mean, sure, these fucktards are all about voting against their own best interests even in the here and now, so I'm not sure why it's a shock that they couldn't give a single solitary fuck about the near future or humanity as a whole. Yet it's still enraging to anyone who has a functional brain cell.

[Shadowferal]

Do your part, be happy about it, just don't get blinded. It's governments and big companies that are doing most of the damage- keep your focus on that.

I'm reminded of this quote:

Let's imagine: if you glimpsed the future, and were frightened by what you saw, what would you do with that information? Would you go to the politicians? The captains of industry? And how would you convince them? Data? Facts? Good luck. The only facts they won't challenge are the ones that keep the wheels greased and the dollars rolling in.
But what if … what if there was a way of skipping the middleman, and putting the critical news directly into everyone's head? The probability of widespread annihilation kept going up. The only way to stop it was to show it. To scare people straight. What reasonable human being wouldn't be galvanized by the potential destruction of everything they've ever known or loved? To save civilization, I would show its collapse. But how do you think this vision was received? How do you think people responded to the prospect of imminent doom? They gobbled it up like a chocolate eclair! They didn't fear their demise, they repackaged it! It can be enjoyed as video games, as TV shows, books, movies – the entire world wholeheartedly embraced the apocalypse, and sprinted toward it with gleeful abandon. Meanwhile, your Earth was crumbling all around you. You've got simultaneous epidemics of obesity and starvation. Explain that one! Bees and butterflies start to disappear, the glaciers melt, algae blooms - all around you the coal mine canaries are dropping dead, and you won't take the hint! In every moment there is the possibility of a better future, but you people won't believe it. And because you won't believe it, you won't do what is necessary to make it a reality! So you dwell on this oh, terrible future, you resign yourselves to it, for one reason — because that future doesn't ask anything of you today.

[NED funded]

-Gets to live an inferior, less comfortable life

I don't see how I'm living a less comfortable life by changing my diet to a healthier one that isn't so high on meat or choosing to bike instead of driving a car. These are things that make me a healthier person. I guess not throwing trash in the street whenever I feel like it is an inconvenience but that is just being a good citizen tbh.

-Gets to die feeling like they did the "right" thing
-Ultimately did nothing because China and India don't care, and won't care until it's too late.

Congrats, you did nothing but expect people to applaud you for it while you shame others for not doing so.

Most of my positive actions in the grand scheme of things won't change much, that doesn't mean that I get to be an asshole or purposely do things that I know are bad because in the general it won't make much of a difference.

- - - Updated - - -

China's CO2 emissions per capita are roughly the same as the EU's at the moment, the US is more than double that amount.

They are above the EU's and that is with a much lower level of development. As their population grows richer the situation will worsen.

[Donald Hellscream]

I fucking hope not, last summer was uncharacteristically dry in Denmark, we went I think about a month and a half without a drop of rain, which of course meant that using charcoal for barbequing was temporarily banned due it being a fire hazard, more so than usual, since everything was much drier than usual on account of it not raining for more than a month straight. There also were parts of Denmark where they asked that people didn't use water needlessly, as in don't water your lawn etc. since there was a real risk of our groundwater reservoirs drying up.

This may be the standard fare for some of the hotter areas of the world but it is peculiar in the case of a country that usually have very mild weather.

[qwerty123456]

You act like there is no possible way for billions of people to find solutions to these problems if we actually invest even just the headspace into accomplishing the goals.

The only feasible solution is to have less humans on the planet. If we hadn't reproduced so quickly pretty much none of the problems would exist and we would eventually have the time and the technology to do something about it. For example even with near perfect recycling eventually there will be a generation of humans that runs out of Iphones unless we start taking stuff from the rest of the universe.

Thats not to say we shouldn't try and stop/reduce the problems that billions of people has caused I'm just saying that as long as we keep pumping out more people every solution will just end up being a temporary band-aid that the next generation or 2+ will have to deal with again.

[Mihalik]

The only feasible solution is to have less humans on the planet. If we hadn't reproduced so quickly pretty much none of the problems would exist and we would eventually have the time and the technology to do something about it. For example even with near perfect recycling eventually there will be a generation of humans that runs out of Iphones unless we start taking stuff from the rest of the universe.

Thats not to say we shouldn't try and stop/reduce the problems that billions of people has caused I'm just saying that as long as we keep pumping out more people every solution will just end up being a temporary band-aid that the next generation or 2+ will have to deal with again.

That is not how it actually works tho.

Major technological leaps and societal development has always depended on large population growth and increased population densities.

It's a self feeding cycle. More people require more development which in turn allows us to sustain larger populations.

Let's say reducing the global population by half wouldn't actually solve anything. If it's a rapid decline it will lead to significant development loss a drop in the quality of life for those remaining which in turn would lead to a massive and nearly immediate population boom.

We have a pretty good grasp of population dynamics.

It is also worth endlessly repeating, about 20 something percent of the world's population used 80% of its resources. This ratio is first of all only possible because that 20% has access to a massive amount of cheap labor.

The path to sustainability is not tied to population. But to how we use resources and how we distribute them.

If we reduced the world's population by 80% but the remaining 20% would continue living with same standard of living and the same consumer behavior, all that we would gain, is an extra 20% time. Which at this point, is basically just a couple of years, something you could likely count on your hands.

I repeat for emphasis, the problem is not population, it has never been population related. The problem is and has always been the current model of consumerism that we have.

[Kyphael]

I still find the "colonizing Mars" solution ridiculous. So we'd leave a planet capable of sustaining life, hot or otherwise, to go to a barren red rock with no oxygen or any sort of other water resources to do what, create sci-fi dome cities? Why wouldn't we make sci-fi dome cities here on Earth? Surely, Earth as its most fucked up would still be more habitable than Mars or any other planet like it.

If we never figure out how to travel at the speed of light to reach a planet like Earth or figure out a way to Keep Earth habitable even after it becomes naturally uninhabitable for human beings, we'll go extinct and that'll be that. Then again there's also the Alien method of space travel I guess. Put ourselves into some sort of cryogenic sleep and space travel real slow and take like 200-300 years to get anywhere habitable, but even that sounds like a pipe dream right now.

[Mihalik]

sip.

Mars isn't meant to be a replacement. It's meant to be a backup.

There's a million different things that could go wrong and either end life on Earth instantly or make it neigh impossible too fast for us to react.

A colonized Mars would be a backup that could carry on. It would basically double the odds in our favor as a species.

Also in the process of colonizing a harsh environment like Mars we would likely learn a lot about sustainability which we could use to improve our odds here on Earth.

[qwerty123456]

That is not how it actually works tho.

Major technological leaps and societal development has always depended on large population growth and increased population densities.

It's a self feeding cycle. More people require more development which in turn allows us to sustain larger populations.

Let's say reducing the global population by half wouldn't actually solve anything. If it's a rapid decline it will lead to significant development loss a drop in the quality of life for those remaining which in turn would lead to a massive and nearly immediate population boom.

We have a pretty good grasp of population dynamics.

It is also worth endlessly repeating, about 20 something percent of the world's population used 80% of its resources. This ratio is first of all only possible because that 20% has access to a massive amount of cheap labor.

The path to sustainability is not tied to population. But to how we use resources and how we distribute them.

If we reduced the world's population by 80% but the remaining 20% would continue living with same standard of living and the same consumer behavior, all that we would gain, is an extra 20% time. Which at this point, is basically just a couple of years, something you could likely count on your hands.

I repeat for emphasis, the problem is not population, it has never been population related. The problem is and has always been the current model of consumerism that we have.

All problems are population related. Without cheap labor you couldn't keep using 80% of the planets resources. Major technological leaps don't require large population growths they require a problem that needs a solution and a bunch of other factors if what you said is true then Africa and India would have warp capable spaceships in 10 years.

Distribution isn't just a greed problem its a physics problem. Unless we place food production centers in the middle of population centers there will always be a distribution problem. Also you would have to force people to strict diets in order to remove food waste. Hell sometimes farmers will grow certain crops then sell some and give away a bunch then dump the rest in a field just to replenish the nutrients in the soil that they lost from harvesting the previous crop they make money on. And thats not even talking about the food waste that is a result of sanitary concerns.

Even poverty is a population problem which then leads to other problems like increased crime. Adding more people to the planet doesn't magically increase humanities scientific research statistic but it does increase the number of deviants which in turn increases suffering.

Also humans are greedy there is no fucking way you can get everyone to get rid of their technology and stuff. Hell we can't even completely stop people from killing near extinct species even when we use armed guards. Unless you alter humans at birth that will never change. I mean just look at the majority of doomsday prepers, they almost never try and prepare to help humanity survive, they tend to only care about their family/friends surviving. Sure in disastrous situations there are many people that work together but there is always several who only look out for themselves.

[Daveon]

Thanks for the response. Since there's more melting going on right now than freezing, and therefore nothing about today's co2 levels could be learned about in the future from ice core samples, couldn't we assume there were similar times in the past where that was also the case? It might explain why there are no huge spikes in co2 in those records, because the ice was simply melting at the time of high co2 levels.

It's been a while since I read some of the studies, but I believe they used both the thickness of ice sheets and other methods to determine that there could not have been long periods of heating/high CO2 levels. As I said in the previous post, they couldn't rule out that there were short (~1-2 year) anomalies... A large enough volcano erupting could raise both the CO2 levels and temperature of the atmosphere for a year or two, but the planet has dealt with that in the past and went back to the "normal trend" quickly. So some of those little bumps in the graph could be anomalies that got averaged in.

But the amount of increase on the right side of the graph is way above a simple "anomaly" statistically. It is a mathematically significant deviation from the norm. This is what is alarming about the data we currently have, because we can find no natural reasons for that recent significant deviation, it must be due to us.

[Logwyn]

I'll post these here for looking at..

https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-mu...power-the-u-s/

https://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127


Sounds like a plan to me. Why not?

[Daveon]

Well Guess I am glad that I live in the middle of nowhere then. All jokes aside I get that we should be mindful about the environment, but the main issues are that people are stupidly afraid of Nuclear power which is the best option there is right now, and instead pushing inefficient and pointless wind and solar. Wind more so than solar is a joke, but still Nuclear would be the best thing we could do and make the biggest impact.

I think you're living in the 1980's or something. Wind is now nearly as cost effective as fossil fuel plants, and solar is almost there as well (it's up to about 65% the efficiency of fossil fuels, up from like 10-20% 30 years ago). We're pretty darn close to both wind and solar being more efficient than any fossil fuel. Technology HAS advanced that much, and it is still moving forward.

I do agree with you that fears of nuclear power, which can be extremely safe and low pollution if done properly, are causing us to continue to use fossil fuels more than we should be.

Edit: See links in the post above mine, much more details on what I just said. And yes, I left out that the wind isn't always blowing and the sun isn't always shining, however the links go into that. And technology is always improving. There will be a point where solar will be more effective (and cheaper) than fossil fuels, fortunately that should happen in most of our lifetimes.

[schwank05]

I think you're living in the 1980's or something. Wind is now nearly as cost effective as fossil fuel plants, and solar is almost there as well (it's up to about 65% the efficiency of fossil fuels, up from like 10-20% 30 years ago). We're pretty darn close to both wind and solar being more efficient than any fossil fuel. Technology HAS advanced that much, and it is still moving forward.

I do agree with you that fears of nuclear power, which can be extremely safe and low pollution if done properly, are causing us to continue to use fossil fuels more than we should be.

Edit: See links in the post above mine, much more details on what I just said. And yes, I left out that the wind isn't always blowing and the sun isn't always shining, however the links go into that. And technology is always improving. There will be a point where solar will be more effective (and cheaper) than fossil fuels, fortunately that should happen in most of our lifetimes.

Right, but that does not take into consideration how much they cost to build and that we have no way to properly integrate them into our power grid that is the main problem in that we are still using fossil fuels to produce the Solar Panels and Wind Turbines.

[Daveon]

Right, but that does not take into consideration how much they cost to build and that we have no way to properly integrate them into our power grid that is the main problem in that we are still using fossil fuels to produce the Solar Panels and Wind Turbines.

I am not sure where your statements come from. Solar and wind are already "properly integrated" into our power grid. Many power companies already have a fraction of their power generated by them.

The Department of Energy's own web site (which isn't renewable energy friendly right now) says that the cost to build and operate wind farms is roughly equivalent to building and operating a new coal plant (considering an equal amount of energy output over 30 years), and while solar isn't quite there yet (the latest panels are about 2/3 as efficient as fossil fuel, so costs roughly 1.5x for the same energy output), it will be eventually (soon(tm)). There is certainly more up front cost for wind and solar, but they are nearly free to operate afterwards.

[Techno-Druid]

I've always been curious why the "cool kids" have such contempt for taking action on climate change.
Just absorbed culture war BS from parents?

Was it acquired from BS artists on South Park? I mean South Park basically taught a generation to ridicule Al Gore, " ManBearPig". Yet Al Gore was the last major candidate to run explicitly with confronting climate change in his platform. Making the 2000 elections a referendum on climate change.... Kyoto et al.


Kinda feel like Matt Stone and Trey Parker owe Al Gore an apology.

They actually did apologize and made an episode where Manbearpig is actually a real threat .

[Donatello Trumpi]

We’re at the point now where we’re all going to have to be uncomfortable if we want to see some kind of change happen... and even then, it may already be too late.

then how about you start with yourself, upperclass princess?

[Donatello Trumpi]

I have. It’s tough but I know it’s worth it. Plus, the military/housing has a Green program for residents. The more I save electricity, the more money I get back in checks paid to me.

But you also need to completely stop travel by plane and use public transits as often as possible for instance.