this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
895 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

234 readers
89 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 12 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I just want to point out that there is almost zero scientific evidence to suggest that climate change will cause the extinction of humanity, and substantial evidence to the contrary.

It may make the world a much worse place to live, but the doomers are almost as unscientific as the deniers.

Queue angry buzzing noises.

[–] catch22@startrek.website 20 points 6 months ago (2 children)
[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 4 points 6 months ago

I mean to be clear I’m fully on board with rapid decarbonization. But when you get the facts wrong in this way, you give fuel for idiots like Ron Paul, and fill people with a paralyzing pessimism that makes change less, and not more likely. There is also research to support this point—climate optimists are more likely to take action rather than doom scrolling on Twitter or whatever.

[–] Xephonian@retrolemmy.com 2 points 6 months ago (4 children)

It's not 'for nothing'. So-called "net zero" policies are incredibly costly to implement (not to mention completely unattainable). These policies (that aren't voted on and pushed by global special interest groups) inflict great harm on the economy and food availability.

Attacking farmers is never the right answer. Imagine attacking your own food supply. How pathetic.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 5 points 6 months ago

Attacking farmers is never the right answer. Imagine attacking your own food supply. How pathetic.

My country produces enough food for our own population eight-fold. So fuck the 7/8 farmers that are fucking our environment over for a dollar.

[–] catch22@startrek.website 3 points 6 months ago

Indeed, trickle down environmental improvements will come guided by the invisible hand of the market.

And you're completely right, food supply should be protected. Maybe programmes to plant wild vegetation such as well suited local produce everywhere instead of bare concrete and wasteland could help, not only food supply but also the environment.

But then that would effect farming profitability, so that of course is too idealistic and not viable... I wish I was as clever as you.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] criitz@reddthat.com 16 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Even if humans don't go extinct, surely untold masses will die from food shortages and disasters.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Definitely a possible outcome, unfortunately. Though one that can still be strongly mitigated by immediate and serious action.

[–] FlaminGoku@reddthat.com 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It can if we do it ourselves. Leaders have failed us for decades. It’s up to ordinary people to bring radical change.

[–] Pilgrim 3 points 6 months ago

The climate change itself isn't the danger to our species, it's the nuclear-armed states that will feel increasing pressure for areas with water or other resources they need, who miscalculate relative advantage in stressful scenarios.