this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
1430 points (97.5% liked)

memes

10226 readers
1813 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] theKalash@feddit.ch 65 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Oh the earth will absolutly be ok. It's we that won't be.

[–] dudinax@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or in the worst case, all life on Earth won't be ok.

[–] theKalash@feddit.ch 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

No, life in general would be fine. It will be (already is) a mass extinction but earth had a couple of those and life will bounce back.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The worst case scenario is turning Earth into a planet with a climate like Venus's.

A planet that proves the existence of runaway greenhouse effects btw.

It is theoretically possible that life exists there, but multicellular life is considered unlikely, and we'll probably never get to take surface samples, given it's been measured at 464 Celsius.

We probably can't fuck up the planet that badly, but toss in a nuclear exchange to greenhouse effects and an unfortunate volcanic eruption or two?

[–] novibe@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

You say that as it’s not a big deal.

Do you really want to see a world without dolphins, pandas, tigers, anacondas..?

[–] oce@jlai.lu 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't think he's saying it's not a big deal for us, but for the planet.

[–] novibe@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I know, but that’s a very detached and unemotional take… Sure “life” will keep existing. But not the life we know. That we love. That we grew up loving so much.

I understand not everyone feels exactly like me. But I was absurdly fascinated by biology books and wildlife documentaries and would read and watch them religiously as a child.

Thinking of all of that just dying and ending truly breaks my heart. Almost more than anything.

Just not as much as the thought of humanity disappearing. But I know most people share that sadness.

[–] oce@jlai.lu 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I also don't think the person is unemotional, it's more about having the correct idea of what's actually going to happen if we don't do anything. I also think ecology needs more rationality, otherwise we get people closing nuclear plants to restart coal plants.

[–] novibe@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You do know that the most well informed people (like active researchers in the field) are often the most pessimistic right? Like you hear on the media that “oh no we’re gonna pass 2º! I guess I won’t be able to ski as much”. But you go to a climate science conference and it’s “yeah… now that we can add more parameters and feedback loops into our models the chance of total extinction by 2100 is 99.99%. On the bright side, half of us expected it to be 100%. So kudos”.

[–] theKalash@feddit.ch -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We'd be dead as well, so wouldn't see them anyway.

Also, the world is pretty cool without dinonsaurs. It will still be pretty cool with what ever comes after what we currently have.

[–] novibe@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can’t explain how knowing all the animals you grew up loving will die forever is sad. If you don’t feel it you don’t I guess.

[–] theKalash@feddit.ch -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, I could imagine it if I wanted to make myself sad. But I, personally, will be dead long before even the last Panda. So it's really just a hypothetical.

[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Got mine, fuck you.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 year ago

It would be a shame for my anaconda if we ain't got buns, hon.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The question is on a scale of the extinction event at the end of the last ice age to the End Permian Extinction Event aka the Great Dying how bad do we want it

[–] dudinax@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or, if instead of reducing emissions, we try to geo-engineer our way out of global warming, screw it up, and create a real snowball Earth.

[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As opposed to geo-engineering our way into global warming like we have been?

"Oh no, don't try anything! We might be too successful."

[–] dudinax@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Warming is bad, so cooling has to be good. Is that your logic?

[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, I'm just pointing out the fallacy in your comment that carbon emissions aren't geo-engineering or that reducing carbon emissions isn't either. Also that any actually geo-engineered solution, as per your definition, is going to be far less effective than the literal centuries of concerted effort to destroy the environment.