this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
184 points (90.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43948 readers
491 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Friendly reminder that it’s not about denial anymore. It’s about how urgent is the existential threat of tipping points and how radical and fast should we act.
One side says, let’s stay reasonable, let’s not hurt the economy, don’t panic because of the these crazy Greta maniacs. Source: We managed a lot of crisis in the past, sometimes it’s not that hot, lobby money.
The other side says we have to hit the breaks immediately or a lot of people are going to die. Source: Science.
What are you basing the existential threat claim on? I don't think I've heard a credible scientist ever claim it's going to end our specie. The yearly excess deaths estimates I've heard vary from few hundred thousand to couple million a year in 2050 - 2100.
While your numbers, if factual (no source posted), are statistically correct (in that it won't make our species go extinct), you have to remember a simple fact: those numbers represent individual human lives. Family, friends, neighbors, your pizza guy, etc. Pretty brutal to be so flippant about.
Also, this doesn't take into account the potential for cascading environmental system failures that could be caused by such warming. These unknowns could greatly change the equation.
I realize you are mainly arguing the point in response to "existential threats" being bandied about, but it's a weird stance to take here.
It's a real issue and actions needs to be taken to prevent the worst case scenario but I find it not useful when people extraggerate the dangers of it. It makes people suspicious about what other things we're being misled about.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health
Thanks for the solid source! I do understand the need for keeping the discussion real, but the article clearly states,
Sounds pretty existential to me, at a scale we have never experienced.
Sure. I'm in no way against fighting the climate change and under no illusion that it's not going to affect the lives of billions of people and will lead to probably tens of millions of unecessary deaths. It's a true crisis.
I just personally get irritated when people talk about it as if an asteroid is heading towards earth and is going to wipe out us all. It's unproductive and causes extreme anxiety to many (especially young) people who don't know better and it's also free ammunition for climate change deniers to point out how "the libs lie about this too" etc.
That anxiety bit is too true, it has me fairly despondent when I think about it too long. It's fair assertion you make, for sure.
Exactly - it is your duty to question the Government and the scientists that work for them. Lets be honest, the Govt's track record for truth is a tad suspect and thats being extra nice. As I said earlier, the alarmists have been selling this to us(or trying to) in differently wrapped packages now for several decades. Even back in the 1970's there were hysterical claims being made. None of it came anywhere close to being true. So, logically, people question it.
More importantly, people question the mitigation tactics which seem to only affect the lower/middle classes directly. Another tough thing for the average Joe to swallow.
People are already dying because of the heat or starving because of droughts and water scarcity. Based on the IPCC report it will become even worse, especially of we don’t manage to avoid the tipping points of the climate crisis in the next few years.
I haven't denied any of that
(Sorry, English is not my first language)
If I understand you correctly you criticize my usage of the word existential, bc it implies that the climate catastrophe will kill all humans? If yes, then I have to correct myself. While this could be a possible outcome, it’s not based on actual research.
Nah, existential is spot on
Seems all too apropos in this context.
There are definitely worse scenarios. The worst I know states that most parts of the world will be uninhabitable by humans and estimate that there will be 1-1.5 billion survivors by the end of the century. So, end of our species? No, just too damn close for comfort.
Some more context: I couldn't find the report unfortunately and I don't know wether it's a majority opinion in science. The scenario talks about a temperature increase of 7°C and of course it's a worst-case scenario. However, it's definitely a possible scenario.
Edit: found this, definitely a credible scientist.
Can you elaborate on the "hit the brakes immediately" or we're all going to die statement? What "Science" backs this claim up? Legit science please, not from agenda-laden website.
The IPCC report is what you‘re looking for! And since it‘s it‘s almost impossible to even reach the goal of 1,5 degrees, we should hit the breaks better sooner than later. It‘s not an „oopsie“ problem we would face otherwise. People are already dying.
No - Im not looking for anything, actually. I just would prefer that those that chest-thump about this stuff would walk the talk and take a "lead". But they refuse. What does "hit the brakes" mean? Are the rich going to also hit the brakes? Or is this all on us "little people" as usual?