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

Technology

58975 readers
3953 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 3) 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (27 children)

Most problems would simply not be a problem if we drastically reduce the human population. Which would not only avoid the issues caused by climate change but also would prevent further increases in pollution and CO2 emissions.

I don't know why the best solution is often the less talked about. Just stop having so many children. We don't have 70% infant mortality rate like we used to, there's no need to have 4 kids to preserve your legacy.

load more comments (27 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 50 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Startups are developing a whole suite of technologies to try to help

Do not think that they are seriously trying to save the planet.

(If they had wanted that, they should have done it 30-40 years ago)

They just want to make money, like everybody else.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Yeah no, it's just about the latest money grab before we all die

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago

I mean, the whole “startups are doing x” is really code for “venture dollars have been made available for entrepreneurs to explore x”. Startups these days are chasing fields which have investment dollars, so this means the rich are starting to invest in the tech a little more earnestly

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago (9 children)

Do people seriously think we could "reverse" climate change?

That's not how the climate works.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

We just change it to something else.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Not sure why you’re being downvoted. Glaciers formed over millennia. If they melt, they’re gone, even if we drop CO2 to pre-industrial levels. The Antarctic ice sheet is millions of years of snow that fell at the rate of a few inches a year and just didn’t melt. If significant portions of that fall off and melt, it’ll be millions of years more for the water it adds to the oceans to cycle back to the ice sheet again. The changes we have made will not be reversed automatically or in many cases at all.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago

It's because I didn't go on a rant about capitalism.

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

Remember it used to be called global warming, because that's what's actually happening. But morons thought a cold winter day disproved global warming, so it was renamed climate change.
And yes we can reverse global warming, but obviously that won't recreate polar or mountain ice, or lower sea levels quickly, but we can get the temperature down to stop it first, which will also curb the increase in natural disasters, then the restoring of sea levels and ice will take at least decades and probably centuries.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago

Hm I always remember hearing this:

In a confidential memo to the Republican party, Luntz is credited with advising the Bush administration that the phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", which he called a "less frightening" phrase than the former.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/27/americans-climate-change-global-warming-yale-report

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

I'm pretty sure it wasn't renamed because people were morons about child weather, at least not completely. It's always been "climate change", because that's a better representation of what is happening.

The climate is changing, and one is the main side effects it's global warming... But there's extra fun side effects, like ocean acidification, that aren't because of the warning

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Global warming is the driver of climate change.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

My point is that slowing down the heating of the planet is doable (though you'd need the majority of the world contributing, which is highly unlikely to happen), but we can't reverse the damage that has already been done, which some people seem to think is possible.

We're not as powerful as we think we are.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

There are gasses and particles that can be released into the atmosphere that will reflect sunlight and warmth away from earth. In theory that could be done very quickly.

We’re not as powerful as we think we are.

We could cause a new ice age easily. Just fire off a few percent of the nukes, and we will revert to an ice age almost immediately.
Of course a side effect would be massive starvation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (3 children)

There are gasses and particles that can be released into the atmosphere that will reflect sunlight and warmth away from earth. In theory that could be done very quickly.

As far as I remember, that was tried with ships and it has some collateral effects that cause different damages to the oceans.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

How is that relevant to ships? It's released to high in the atmosphere.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 78 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Tipping point has tipped?

The one I remember scaring the hell out of everyone is the permafrost melt.

Thaw out enough permafrost and it releases enough greenhouse gasses to self perpetuate. No human interaction required.

https://www.space.com/methane-beneath-arctic-permafrost-climate-feedback-loop

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago

Yeah and it was pretty much going once we hit the twenty teens but took awhile to notice. At this point its about slowing things down as much as possible.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 221 points 2 days ago (6 children)

Two types of people reading this:

"Oh no! We should do everything we can to mitigate the damage."

and

"Fuck it, might as well keep doing what I'm doing."

And it's the latter that got us here in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 days ago

It's the parable of office pizza: some people take 1 slice because there are many people to feed.

some people take 3 slices, because there are many people to feed.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Two types of people reading this, the cannibals, and the cannibees

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

And now I’m just picturing myself cracking open a can of beer only for bees to start flying out!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

It doesn’t make any difference what got us here in the first place. What matters now is what options are the best from now moving forward.

These scientists seem to say that trying to reverse climate change isn’t the right path forward. I wonder why.

edit: I wonder what makes them think that reversing climate change won’t work.

Someone was so offended by their misreading of my comment that they went through and downvote-bombed every comment in my history.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago

One of the greatest advantages of the totalitarian elites of the twenties and thirties was to turn any statement of fact into a question of motive. -- Hannah Arendt

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago

What they're saying is that trying to reverse climate change won't be enough. It doesn't mean it isn't the right path, just that it won't go far enough.

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

Because it won’t work? That’s what I got from the article. I’m not sure what else you’re implying.

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

I mean why think it won’t work.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago

The article is literally right there. Why are you being weird about this?

[–] [email protected] 55 points 2 days ago (2 children)

“Fuck it, might as well keep doing what I’m doing.”

And that last group is going to be angry when they can't keep doing their stuff when insurance rates go insane so they can't buy houses or cars, or when food prices keep going up even faster than they are now.

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

And industrialists!

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 days ago

Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›