• PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Thanks. Please propagatw this fact more.

    I hear and read it too often that people are falling into devastation mode and say, back up, we lost, its over.

    However its a difference in being “over” which is 2.5 - 4.5 degrees or above.

    • interolivary@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      As @vivadanang@lemm.ee pointed out, it’s extremely likely we’re going to be at 1.5°C in just a few years. Even if we went carbon negative literally right at this instant, we’d likely still fly past 2.5°C in the relatively near future (well, depending on which research you believe re. how fast carbon neutralaity / negativity would affect temperature change.)

      This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t do anything, but I think we really need to start putting more resources and thought into survival instead of just blindly hoping that mitigation will save us (and it’s not exactly looking great on the mitigation front).

      I’ll be surprised if mass-scale industrial society is still around in 100 years and we’re more or less fucked, but we’ll be even more fucked if we don’t start thinking more about how we’re going to deal with the inevitable.

      • PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think industrial society will be good since the technology, science, know-how etc. Are available.

        Its more like a question of will power and money. And pressure for that is going to come for sure.

        But I disagree on putting resources collectively/mass scale into plan b.

        (I would not put resources into defense and military, but who am I to tell)

        We need a united world again the challenges we are facing. I think splitting into two paths will only create more discussion about whether or not.

        Survival is not our first priority, its basically obligatory for a discussion about our future.

        Setting goals low is “convenient” however not good.

        • interolivary@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          (I would not put resources into defense and military, but who am I to tell)

          How’s that related to me saying we should plan for how to survive the changes that inevitably worsening change will cause?

          Setting goals low is “convenient” however not good.

          And how on earth is saying “we should be putting more thought into how we plan to survive?” setting goals low? If anything, simply blindly believing that mitigation will save us all seems to be setting goals low. The idea that it’d be detrimental to our efforts if we put resources into anything except mitigation and would just be “splitting into two paths” is, frankly, absurd.

          Fuck, even NASA says that we need to both look at mitigation and adaptation; they’re just using a different term but mean exactly the same thing.

          I wasn’t pulling this survival stuff out of my ass you know: multiple organizations, climate researchers etc. have been saying this, which is where I got the idea from in the first place.

          edit: wiki link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_adaptation#Co-benefits_with_mitigation

          • PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            related to me saying we

            Easy bro, this was a general statement about the ridiculous world we live in and in no way targeted towards you or your statements.

            Nasa is talking about adaption. No mention of the word survival. Survival for me is the ongoing existence of humanity. Building seed storages, build underground sanctuaries.

            Survival is like worst case scenario, when we play running from sunbeams riddick style.

            Maybe it was just a misinterpretation of the terms by us.

            I am not denying that elevated temps are a inevatible thing. However I am saying that we would save as a ton of adaption if we mitigate, therefore I put mitigation on the top. And if we mitigate successfully, then we can talk about adaption.

            But starting with adaption measures without enforcing mitigation measures is an uphill battle which we will loose for sure. Because adaption has no end. Well maybe becoming intergalactic and leaving earth behind for a new planet.

            From you wiki link I would not say that having public transport is adaption.

            And again it is in my head nowhere near the term survival. But as I said probably a misunderstanding from my side as I am not native in english.