So, there are still people not believing it?

Well, but that's the point really. We are on top of a pyramid. How long can we keep us there, if the base is crumbling away? As someone sad, there are no jobs on a dead planet. In other words, there will be less fertile land, to grow the crops our precious animals that we use for burgers and hamm can eat. Some studies say in a couple of years, billions of people won't have access to clean water.

Seriously, this is what really baffles me. You do not need a degree in climate science or even a lot of knowledge to realize that we should maybe not destroy the enviroment we exist in. Just as how you don't shit in the same room you cook and eat. I always thought logic alone would tell you that ... but apparantly not.
 
Well, but that's the point really. We are on top of a pyramid. How long can we keep us there, if the base is crumbling away? As someone sad, there are no jobs on a dead planet. In other words, there will be less fertile land, to grow the crops our precious animals that we use for burgers and hamm can eat. Some studies say in a couple of years, billions of people won't have access to clean water.

Seriously, this is what really baffles me. You do not need a degree in climate science or even a lot of knowledge to realize that we should maybe not destroy the enviroment we exist in. Just as how you don't shit in the same room you cook and eat. I always thought logic alone would tell you that ... but apparantly not.

For the individual investor the future of the earth means very little. This is not to paint people as bad, but that the overall negative effect is less than the positive effect of continuing down this road.
Hotter climate is not going to be a hindrance, and if you go full dystopia, the more horror, the more to invest in, the more to gain. The vast majority of humans are always just a comodity in these scenarios, their suffering is either inconsequential or even beneficial for the main driving force behind industry.
Why the worlds dominating industrial forces are not very worried about climate change or animals or trees or people, it's not really a big mystery, it's almost self explanatory to the point of being on purpose.

Take your access to clean water example.
It's a gold-mine in the making. Hell, deprive everyone of clean water, even where it is available. More to invest in, more to hoard, more to ration out, and best of all - another means of mass control.
 
That's basically ten years old Bond movie plot - the antagonist trying to create water monopoly in Bolivia, right?
 
I am not so sure about that. It all depends which timeframe we're talking about. I mean if we don't do anything we're talking about an event that has the potential to make us go extinct.

Let us say we do nothing, like nothing at all for the next 60 to 70 years. This means that average global temperature could be 4° or even 5° higher compared to now, and this could happen already in 2060. The effects would be a planet that is, for the most part, inhospitable for humans.

I quote:
"If the currently planned actions are not fully implemented, a warming of 4°C could occur as early as the 2060s. Such a warming level by 2100 would not be the end point: a further warming to levels over 6°C would likely occur over the following centuries."

Even the United States and Europe would face heat waves, as never seen before. Large parts of Europe might actually become a desert. On the other side, parts of Siberia might actually become habitable. A large number of people, will have no chance to live in places like, Spain, Itally, France, Germany, which might become deserts, large costal regions will be under water, eventually 60 meters - more than 70% of the worlds population is located around coast lines. The large amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and oceans, will also have consequences we'e never seen bofore. For example, the acidification of the oceans. 99% of the animals, on this planet, could die. It already happend a couple of times in the history of this planet. How humans are supposed to not only survive but actually thrive in such an environment, is a mystery to me.

This is what it might look like in 100-120 years. If we continue with the pollution.

We are quite literaly destroying the future for our species. There can be no capitalism, on a dead planet. THose that make investments now, might not be hit by all the effects, yes some of it will happen in 100 years. But when you think about it, historically that's like nothing. WW1 happend 100 years ago, and you watch documentaries where a 90 year old guy explains his experiences. This means the grandchildren of your children will be born in this world, and your children and grandchildren might actually experience it with them. That's 1 or 2 generations away.
 
That's okay, third worlders keep multiplying at frightening rate so we could render down billions of corpses for the water the fremen way. Star Trek suck ass, Dune has all the answers!
 


2q9ij9.jpg
 
Yes, but personal freedoms and a luxurious lifestyle for aprox 20% of the worlds population, are more important right now. So the environment has to take a step back I am afraid.
 
I am not so sure about that. It all depends which timeframe we're talking about. I mean if we don't do anything we're talking about an event that has the potential to make us go extinct.

Let us say we do nothing, like nothing at all for the next 60 to 70 years. This means that average global temperature could be 4° or even 5° higher compared to now, and this could happen already in 2060. The effects would be a planet that is, for the most part, inhospitable for humans.

I quote:
"If the currently planned actions are not fully implemented, a warming of 4°C could occur as early as the 2060s. Such a warming level by 2100 would not be the end point: a further warming to levels over 6°C would likely occur over the following centuries."

Even the United States and Europe would face heat waves, as never seen before. Large parts of Europe might actually become a desert. On the other side, parts of Siberia might actually become habitable. A large number of people, will have no chance to live in places like, Spain, Itally, France, Germany, which might become deserts, large costal regions will be under water, eventually 60 meters - more than 70% of the worlds population is located around coast lines. The large amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and oceans, will also have consequences we'e never seen bofore. For example, the acidification of the oceans. 99% of the animals, on this planet, could die. It already happend a couple of times in the history of this planet. How humans are supposed to not only survive but actually thrive in such an environment, is a mystery to me.

This is what it might look like in 100-120 years. If we continue with the pollution.

We are quite literaly destroying the future for our species. There can be no capitalism, on a dead planet. THose that make investments now, might not be hit by all the effects, yes some of it will happen in 100 years. But when you think about it, historically that's like nothing. WW1 happend 100 years ago, and you watch documentaries where a 90 year old guy explains his experiences. This means the grandchildren of your children will be born in this world, and your children and grandchildren might actually experience it with them. That's 1 or 2 generations away.

I know you take this far more seriously then I do, I mean I live in Canada so global warming mean we might get some decent weather hahaha, but to change the course of the planet so drastically right now would involve generally creating a massive economic problem. What do you think will happen when that 20% as you put it suddenly get a massive change to there lifestyle. The same thing that always happens when that massive of changes happens revolution, rioting, unrest. What we would see when the 20% which includes all of the worlds most powerful countries militarily suddenly go bonkers? I mean I like Fallout but I don't really want to live in that nightmare scenario either of near if not total human extinction. The simple answer right now is we are headed to doomsday one way or another, and until new factors come into place to actually change this we are fucked.

I like the idea of ending globalization, due to the mass amount of goods shipped around the world nowadays we have a huge contributing factor right there. How is it cheaper to grow potatoes in Canada, ship them to China to be cut into French Fries, and then ship them back to Canada to sell? I don't know how it is but that is what companies do nowadays. I like free trade and encourage it but it is not fully capitalism's fault (especially when you look at the pollution rate of communist or ex-communist nations, that's right I am calling them out), it is that free trade has enabled this to happen by encouraging this. I mostly nowadays only support free trade amount countries that have similar labour laws and standards due to shit like the French Fries example above. Why pat a Canadian $15-$20 an hour to watch a machine cut up potatoes when you can pay a kid in China to do it for $0.10 a day.
 
I know you take this far more seriously then I do, I mean I live in Canada so global warming mean we might get some decent weather hahaha, but to change the course of the planet so drastically right now would involve generally creating a massive economic problem. What do you think will happen when that 20% as you put it suddenly get a massive change to there lifestyle. The same thing that always happens when that massive of changes happens revolution, rioting, unrest. What we would see when the 20% which includes all of the worlds most powerful countries militarily suddenly go bonkers? I mean I like Fallout but I don't really want to live in that nightmare scenario either of near if not total human extinction. The simple answer right now is we are headed to doomsday one way or another, and until new factors come into place to actually change this we are fucked.

I like the idea of ending globalization, due to the mass amount of goods shipped around the world nowadays we have a huge contributing factor right there. How is it cheaper to grow potatoes in Canada, ship them to China to be cut into French Fries, and then ship them back to Canada to sell? I don't know how it is but that is what companies do nowadays. I like free trade and encourage it but it is not fully capitalism's fault (especially when you look at the pollution rate of communist or ex-communist nations, that's right I am calling them out), it is that free trade has enabled this to happen by encouraging this. I mostly nowadays only support free trade amount countries that have similar labour laws and standards due to shit like the French Fries example above. Why pat a Canadian $15-$20 an hour to watch a machine cut up potatoes when you can pay a kid in China to do it for $0.10 a day.
Don't really feel like going through all of the points in this atm, but I will point out that while places like China do have really bad pollution, that's largely because of the sheer number of people living there, and that the USA actually has the most pollution per capita. So it sort of is Capitalism's fault.
 
Don't really feel like going through all of the points in this atm, but I will point out that while places like China do have really bad pollution, that's largely because of the sheer number of people living there, and that the USA actually has the most pollution per capita. So it sort of is Capitalism's fault.

All I said was its not fully capitalisms fault, but it does hold some of the blame, just like everyone does, get that everyone! Even all those who hold up environmentalism as the holy grail. David Suzuki is a fraud, Neil Youngs an asshole, Al Gore a liar. The Paris Accord meeting had 140 giant ass plastic animals in there. The extremely wealthy who campaign for environmentalism still hop on private jets afterwards. How many countries import oil from 3rd world shit holes with no environmental regulations (looking at you Europe). How many technologies that could actually help get pushed aside due to expense, but go ahead and tax the people more for carbon or fuel usage? Unfortunately the environmental movement is just as bloody divided as anything else due to political ideology.

I live in a net Carbon sink country, we are leaders in the world in Carbon capture technology, we have coal technology that makes coal plants 3x cleaner then natural gas, we produce the most environmentally and ethically friendly oil in the world. But these things take money and unfortunately most of the world is more into virtue signaling and more taxes then actually investing in cleaning shit up. Are these technologies the long term solution, probably not, but they could do a hell of a lot more then any environmentalist is right now. Nuclear tech is still seen as bad. The unfortunate truth is electric cars (as they exist right now) are worse in the long run that what we are doing right now. They are made of so much plastic its ridiculous to save weight and have a giant lithium ion battery that cant be recycled and is a giant environmental disaster to make, never mind that we would need a lot more power generation to accommodate them. Solar and wind will never supply our needs (but they do help), but once again they are cost prohibitive (for now, costs keep coming down) and wind is a giant ass eyesore on the horizon.
 
@yfk12 Not to mention that a subtantial number of that pollution happens because goods that we consume in Europe and the US are manufactured at the lowest possible standards for humans and the environment in nations like China and India. Where do people think most of their cheap clothes, toys, and even some food comes from? The eather?

I know you take this far more seriously then I do, I mean I live in Canada so global warming mean we might get some decent weather hahaha, but to change the course of the planet so drastically right now would involve generally creating a massive economic problem. What do you think will happen when that 20% as you put it suddenly get a massive change to there lifestyle. The same thing that always happens when that massive of changes happens revolution, rioting, unrest. What we would see when the 20% which includes all of the worlds most powerful countries militarily suddenly go bonkers? I mean I like Fallout but I don't really want to live in that nightmare scenario either of near if not total human extinction. The simple answer right now is we are headed to doomsday one way or another, and until new factors come into place to actually change this we are fucked.

I like the idea of ending globalization, due to the mass amount of goods shipped around the world nowadays we have a huge contributing factor right there. How is it cheaper to grow potatoes in Canada, ship them to China to be cut into French Fries, and then ship them back to Canada to sell? I don't know how it is but that is what companies do nowadays. I like free trade and encourage it but it is not fully capitalism's fault (especially when you look at the pollution rate of communist or ex-communist nations, that's right I am calling them out), it is that free trade has enabled this to happen by encouraging this. I mostly nowadays only support free trade amount countries that have similar labour laws and standards due to shit like the French Fries example above. Why pat a Canadian $15-$20 an hour to watch a machine cut up potatoes when you can pay a kid in China to do it for $0.10 a day.

All I said was its not fully capitalisms fault, but it does hold some of the blame, just like everyone does, get that everyone!
I will try to adress several issues in one post here:

It doesn't matter who's to blame anyway, but rather how to fix the issue. I mean to be fair, you do have a very valid point. People won't agree to changes, where they have to accept severe cuts. But I don't think we actually have to. I mean what I am basically talking about, is consumerism. Needless consumerism, for the most part. You know, there are tons of surveys that show us how this kind of behaviour is actually not enrichting our lives. As far as we know, what really makes people happy, is beeing a member of a social group like your friends, families and the like and of communities, we are social beeings after all. Products, particularly many of the electronical gadgeds we own, like smart phones, do not seem to have a very long lasting effect when it comes to making people happy. So there are many products, that we could actually 'give up', without huge problems, as long as we have alternatives. In other words, we have to strengthen particuilarly the small local communities, we have to support ways and lifestyles where people are more independed and are part of a comunity. Of course this has not to happen everywhere in the same way. In a rural town in texas this looks different than New York, or Berlin, Germany for example. We have to somehow achieve a society, where people are much better conected with each other and supporting each other. This would probably solve also a lot of other issues which happen when people grow lonley, particularly in their old age! We could also save a lot of money if people had more chances to support each other.

To give you one example, there are now initiatives where people look for a loocal farmer they decide to support, and he's growing food for them solely. You can calculate how much people the famer needs to have a decent income for example. And such initiatives are poping up in a lot of other areas too! Neighbours that start to share tools, even cars with each other. That way not everyone has to buy the same equipment over and over again. But again, people need very good ways to conect each other to achieve this. But I think, it's possible.

The point is that we also have to think about certain developments we're currently experiencing and what ever if we actually can afford them and if they are even needed. Take a look at Bitcon. What value does it have? Zero. It's just a purely digital currency. And yet, the whole Bitcon network already needs as much Energy like Denmark or something, I am not completely sure about the correct numbers here, but it's a damn lot. So we have to be really carefull that this global digitalisation that we're seeing right now, isn't going to really blow everything up and pretty much destroying every positve change.

The main issue we're having to actually deal with, is the consumption of Energy. Not even so much the source. Actually if we only burned as much fossil fuel like 150 years ago, we wouldn't be having the issues we see today. So we don't even have to get away from everything, we simply have to find a way to be more carefull! Energy is a very great way to measure things here, because our planet has a certain energy level, usually this level is in balance, but we're adding energy to the environment by burning energy that we dig up from the ground. We're basically adding energy, that was millions of years ago present in the environment as plants, animals and the like and is now stored inside the earth, as fossil fuel. We're changing the ecosystem at an alarming rate. And we're currently on the way into a phase, where possible cascade effects might occour. For example, if the methane in the permafrost regions is released, which is actually a 100 times worse then Co2! So all of it could happen at a much faster rate than it is now.

When some scientist say, that this is an event that's a real threat to us as a species, then they are not joking. Even the mere possibility of it, should at the very least make us think if we should consider to make changes here. Yes, those changes sholdn't complettely distrubt everything, but I do not believe we can't change our current lifestyle without actually improving it as well.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top