this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
467 points (96.2% liked)

Technology

58975 readers
3881 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 day ago

Dibs on Vault 12!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Then I guess you guys have no use for this climate change reversal machine I made. I knew it was a shit idea. I'm so stupid. I'm scrapping it now.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

If the people won't rise up for the sake of their own children then the only solution is to out spend climate change. Capitalism won't save itself, it will monetize the downfall. So in a way these tech companies are doing exactly what their suppose to but not really what they should.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

People won't even rise up for their own sake. gestures in every general direction

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Can't argue with that. At the end of the day we are another mammalian creature that runs around killing, fucking, and shitting then we die. The ecosystem of today dying is of no consequences to the dinosaur, the wooly mammoth, or what ever critter that roamed these same lands. I say build the buildings big enough and strong enough for the sentience of tomorrow to unearth them and wonder. Wonder hard enough and we are reborn.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Not sure if the future tense 'will' is appropriate here

[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 days ago (3 children)

The problem is people are only going to change their behaviour once the consequences hit them, and with global warming, the consequences won't really hit them until a long time later.

The second problem is the consequences are dramatic. And very hard if not impossible to turn around.

To really get people and companies to change their behaviour, we would need an immediate consequence to behaviour that is bad for the environment.

Bottom line is, some people try, some people don't give a shit, and in the end we will have to deal with it.

I hope governments are watching carefully, we will need to keep a lot of water away from us in the future, and we'll have to deal with the changing climate too.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

We’ll have a big environmental 9/11 moment where a major American city becomes permanently uninhabitable and then there will alot of handwringing about “What could we have done!?” Then we’ll start getting lukewarm serious about it for maybe a few years, but by that point it’s way too late.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

people are only going to change their behaviour once the consequences hit them

Or if there's a proper incentive to change. We're seeing that incentive today with solar becoming cheaper than other energy sources, so it's getting a lot of adoption. We do incentivize those, but they're honestly about at the point where we don't need subsidies to get people to switch, and the subsidies merely accelerate adoption.

I'm a perennial optimist, and I'm confident we'll continue to innovate our way out of problems. We'll be late like we always are, but we'll also innovate ways to "catch up." Maybe we'll mess w/ geoengineering in the arctic (we're already experimenting w/ cloud seeding and thickening glaciers), or maybe we'll come up with other options in the future. I honestly don't know, but what I do know is that once we're convinced there is a problem, we do a pretty good job of solving that problem. Look at COVID vaccine development, lead poisoning, or recovery of endangered species.

We're usually late, but we are also pretty good at engineering our way out of problems. Solutions probably end up costing more than they would with prevention, but I'm confident we will come up with solutions, it just might take a bit of... encouragement from mother nature.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Governments will fail. Wherever unpopular "Green" Measures are implemented, the right-wing cockroaches appear, destroying any discourse.

The consequence will be a global war by stupid populists who think that is one solution (which it kind of is,... Dead people won't emit CO2)

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 days ago (3 children)

This is clearly a "why not both" situation.

Emissions must be cut and new technologies for reversing existing damage must be developed. There's a whole bunch of different things that needs doing, because there is simply no single solution, but using one approach to argue against another is certainly not helping anyone.

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

Exactly, which is why I don't get the point of this article.

Yeah, even after we get emissions under control there will still be problems, and we'll tackle those when we get there.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

Yeah, though I think currently only emissions cutting should be implemented, mostly because damage reversing tech like DAC take green energy that could otherwise be used to more effectively cut emissions elsewhere. Once we start getting excess green energy to do such things, then it should be implemented. It should still be researched and developed now tho

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›