Thank you. <3
Zacryon
joined 4 months ago
I just saw a deleted comment, then your username and found it funny.
Got so angry, that you deleted your own comment, huh? /j
Leave him. He spreads the truth.
She rubs my hand between hers, and sets it on her lap
My expectation when I was reading this:
"She rubs my hand between hers, and sets it on fire"
Probably due to the formatting in anon's greentext.
Do have the recipe by any chance?
Da er geschworen hat den im Kampf gegen die Ukraine einzusetzen, bin ich eigentlich beruhigt. Die Schrottkarre geht eh in Flammen auf ehe sie die Frontlinien erreicht.
Eigentlich ganz pfiffig von Herrn Musk, um so die Ukraine-feindlichen Truppen minimal auszudünnen. /j
NEVER consume media legally
Given our current economic system and supposing that you can't change it for now, how would you support a living for media creators (movies, shows, games, art, music, whatever)?
Genuine question. I find myself on the fence about this. Currently, I consume media legally due to several reasons:
- Supporting the creators and thereby incentivising them to produce more of stuff which I enjoyed.
- I can afford it.
- I would like to keep it legal.
Stuff like this (although not affected since I don't live in a country with that shitty laws), but also the decline of quality products as a result of companies trying to maximize their profit margins by producing a lot of cheap trash, as well as the criminalization of consumers and the fact that the profits are not shared equally among the creators but rather a few get the most while the rest gets some pennies (an issue present in virtually every business), make me really favour the idea of getting a pirate hat.
However:
If everyone would do this, this would lead to the death of the media industry, since no one would be able to pay for the productions and everyone involved anymore.
How would get those productions then?
Really, I think the only way to change this is to impose much better laws on the one hand and switch to a different, better, economic system on the other hand. But I don't see these things coming soon. Which leaves me with staying legal.
I would like to read your thoughts on that. (And those of everyone else who wants to chime in.)
There is a lot more to it than rise of sea levels on the one hand and some places being too hot.
TL;DR: Climate change causes mass extinctions, ecosystem collapse, extreme weather, and life-threatening heat. Technology alone won't save us; prevention is crucial. Ignoring climate action risks severe economic damage, comparable to a permanent Great Depression.
(Prepare for a great wall of fuck.)
In short (list is not exhaustive, there's surely more which I also don't know of or don't think of right now):
- Mass extinction of several species, which can't keep up with the pace of climate change. You might have heard already how insect popluations dramatically declined in the past decades.
- Extinction or even significant deaths and lack of offspring in various species leads to imbalance and collapse of entire eco systems.
- Humans are part of and relying on functioning and healthy eco systems. Without them our very basis of life starts collapsing, leading to numerous human deaths and a lot of misery.
- The occurence of extreme weather conditions as well as catastophes in consequence of climate change increases. The occasional summer storm might become less occasional, which is less of a problem. But so do floodings, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts or forest fires increase. And those cost lives and do a lot of damage. We experience weather conditions in places today, which most common people would've deemed impossible or extremely unlikely at least. (Not every extreme weather condition is the result of climate change though. But a lot are. An entire field of attribution science has emerged to elaborate which catastrophe has been a direct cause of climate change.)
- Increased temperatures, but especially heatwaves, are already now costing more and more lives and that's not just some particular places with extremely hot temperatures, but it's also occuring in entire nations known for more temperate conditions. For example in the EU.
- Being "too hot" is only one side. You can survive 40°C or higher, if the air humidity is low. But due to global warming we can also observe time frames in regions where the air humidity plus temperature reaches such levels that people are exposed to life-threatening health risks already at 31°C. (See also "wet bulb temperature" in general.) Higher humidity makes it harder to cool ourselves by sweating, i.e., evaporative cooling. This is being observed more and more often in south-east asia and the middle east but also started to affect the USA in some regions (Texas, last year in 2023).
You might now understand a bit better why even a few degrees more around the globe incur existential threats.
Human beings are remarkably creative when they need to be. [...] if the need arose [...] some smart ones [...] plan it all, and the rest [...] build it
(Sorry for quoting you a bit more freely here.)
Technology can do much, but it is not magic. (I'm an engineering scientist, because I realised at some point that I can't become a magician.) Entropy is a bitch and current solutions or attempts I know of regarding carbon capture are a nice idea at best, but in practise currently not feasibe and therefore a money-pit at worst. "Building higher and cooler" seems a naive approach given the scale and complexity of human lives and disregards the problems we're facing due to climate change. I don't mean that condescendingly, rather to highlight how massively impractical that approach would be on the one hand and no solution for most problems caused by climate change on the other hand.
I absolutely think that it's necessary to continue research in that area, but until we have developed solutions which can tackle the problems we've caused in a significant way (which can still take decades until we've got large-scale applicable solutions), I think it's best to practise prevention. Avoid contributing factors to climate change at allmost all costs.
Don't put all your money on the "technology will save us"-horse.
By the way:
The people who think that climate and environmental protection are damaging the economy are short-sighted, as climate change is projected to cause a tremendous amount financial damage world-wide in the long-term.
One of many many sources on this puts it like this:
when the researchers added in the possibility of a moderate 2 degrees of warming before the end of the century, this led to a decline in future GDP of between 30 and 50 percent by 210 [...] In the U.S. alone [...] A 50 percent decline in 2100 GDP relative to baseline means a loss of $56 trillion each year, which exceeds the current GDP. Such declines would leave individuals with “a 31 percent drop in purchasing power relative to a world without climate change,” Bilal adds. Such losses are “comparable to living in the 1929 Great Depression, forever,” he says.
https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2024/09/harvard-economic-impact-climate-change
Environmental protection is economical protection. They go hand-in-hand.
Uranium is extremely common on Earth.
I wouldn't be so uncritical about this. Depending on rate of consumption (and data source) the world's Uranium supplies will last for about 50 to 200 years. (The latter a low demand scenario based on current consumption rates.)
Technological advancements may push these limits. Possibly even into 10.000 to 60.000 years, when filtering active substances from seawater, which is currently quite a timeframe to consider it long-term sustainable even for a limited resource. However, we're not there yet.
Aww too bad.