this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024

1779 points (98.8% liked)

Science Memes

10923 readers

2189 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1779

geoengineering (mander.xyz)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

87 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

There are more scenarios in which humanity will run itself in to the ground, we could survive for another while but I'm definitely not certain.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

To be fair... if we did manage to develop terraform-level atmospheric processing, we could set the CO2 level on Earth to whatever we want. Maybe that's what he was trying to say?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago

That's not true. That's like saying "If we had refrigerators, we could keep food good forever". As you know, food in the fridge can still go bad, because no technology is perfect. I think that terraforming technology will be an extension of techniques we can use on earth today, like controlling emissions. And that saving earth from apocalypse is the best possible practice we could have for fixing other planets. There is no magic "fix everything" button. Even with the right technology, you still have to do the work. Today, we have the right technology to save Earth, and what determines the continued survival of the human species is whether it is capable of doing the work.

[–] [email protected] 65 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So... he'll push for a massive NASA budget increase, right?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

No, free market will solve it! SpaceX! (/s)

[+] [email protected] -8 points 6 months ago (6 children)

I just want to point out that there is almost zero scientific evidence to suggest that climate change will cause the extinction of humanity, and substantial evidence to the contrary.

It may make the world a much worse place to live, but the doomers are almost as unscientific as the deniers.

Queue angry buzzing noises.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

The climate change itself isn't the danger to our species, it's the nuclear-armed states that will feel increasing pressure for areas with water or other resources they need, who miscalculate relative advantage in stressful scenarios.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Even if humans don't go extinct, surely untold masses will die from food shortages and disasters.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Definitely a possible outcome, unfortunately. Though one that can still be strongly mitigated by immediate and serious action.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Which won't happen.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It can if we do it ourselves. Leaders have failed us for decades. It’s up to ordinary people to bring radical change.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

*cue

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

You're not wrong at all, humans won't go extinct. The alarming thing is all the other things which will go extinct or be reduced in number, and the change in water/soil/weather sources obviously. Biodiversity and not having your neighbourhood turned into a desert are pretty important things to like, not have life suck. Plus you know, having access to clean water... humans will keep growing in number (mainly in Africa, probably the opposite in the developed world and countries like China and India though), but in 50 years we'll all be living like wartorn Syrian children*

*I am not a climate scientist, nor do I have much actual knowledge on climate science, so I do not know which precise flavor of impoverished middle eastern we will become

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

This is the thing for me, everyone who makes that argument is actually saying "a temperature change won't make us extinct." They don't care that we'll go extinct from the effects because cars go brrrr.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I don’t disagree at all but this seems to be a common misconception. See the OP from the Twitter thread and the angry bees I’ve enraged.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

I think it speaks to how little nuance people are willing to tolerate before they throw a person in the "on my side" or "not on my side" category. And it speaks to how little people actually know about the science behind the activism they're apparently a part of.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Are you a parody account or just a total moron?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Lol what? Happy to discuss if you want to say something of substance rather than insults.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

We already took people like you seriously. We had the debates, we looked at the evidence, we waited to see. We did it for a hundred years. And what did we get? More oil, more death, more crop failure, more disasters. Enough is enough!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Apparently you haven’t looked at the evidence or we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Science is settled, there is no debate to be had here. I am not aware of any research that points to human extinction as a possibility, let alone anything likely. But you’re the one who pushed back and I can’t prove a negative. So if you don’t wish to provide evidence or discuss then keep your ignorance to yourself.

And I’m not sure what you mean by “people like me”. People willing to share the state of climate science in spite of backlash from the uneducated and emotionally unstable? I wish such people were taken more seriously, then we wouldn’t be in this mess.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 6 months ago (2 children)

[+] [email protected] -23 points 6 months ago (4 children)

It's not 'for nothing'. So-called "net zero" policies are incredibly costly to implement (not to mention completely unattainable). These policies (that aren't voted on and pushed by global special interest groups) inflict great harm on the economy and food availability.

Attacking farmers is never the right answer. Imagine attacking your own food supply. How pathetic.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago

Spending money on public infrastructure is good for the economy. It creates jobs. I'm starting to think you're just using the economy as a euphemism for billionaire portfolios.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Indeed, trickle down environmental improvements will come guided by the invisible hand of the market.

And you're completely right, food supply should be protected. Maybe programmes to plant wild vegetation such as well suited local produce everywhere instead of bare concrete and wasteland could help, not only food supply but also the environment.

But then that would effect farming profitability, so that of course is too idealistic and not viable... I wish I was as clever as you.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

Attacking farmers is never the right answer. Imagine attacking your own food supply. How pathetic.

My country produces enough food for our own population eight-fold. So fuck the 7/8 farmers that are fucking our environment over for a dollar.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago

[–] [email protected] -4 points 6 months ago

I mean to be clear I’m fully on board with rapid decarbonization. But when you get the facts wrong in this way, you give fuel for idiots like Ron Paul, and fill people with a paralyzing pessimism that makes change less, and not more likely. There is also research to support this point—climate optimists are more likely to take action rather than doom scrolling on Twitter or whatever.

load more comments