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
 
top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hupf@feddit.de 32 points 6 months ago

So... he'll push for a massive NASA budget increase, right?

[–] 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.

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 10 points 6 months ago (3 children)

What about what he said implies he thinks human-caused climate change isn't possible on Earth? He just thinks it won't kill us.

[–] zout@fedia.io 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Then why does he think we need to create habitats on the moon or other planets? Just stay here if we can last for hundreds of millions of years. The Lord will provide, right?

[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 4 points 6 months ago

Imperialism inherent in the late stage capitalist system.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rimjob_rainer@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Hundreds of millions

Even without climate change I doubt that humans would survive more than 1-2k years from now.

[–] Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The only way humans' progeny will exist for millions of years is if we manage to make it through the great filter and spread out to other planets, assuming we can find planets suitable for open-environment habitation.

We're quite good at making more of ourselves than is sustainable, so the only way of keeping ourselves going that long is to spread out.

Of course by then I'm sure several new species of humans will have emerged.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] xia@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

To be fair... if we did manage to develop terraform-level atmospheric processing, we could set the CO2 level on Earth to whatever we want. Maybe that's what he was trying to say?

load more comments (1 replies)

If you start with the assumptions that Earth is regulated by YHWH by divine intervention and that all other planets are gifted to humanity by the same to do with as we will, this absurd belief follows naturally.

[–] 96VXb9ktTjFnRi@feddit.nl 2 points 6 months ago

There are more scenarios in which humanity will run itself in to the ground, we could survive for another while but I'm definitely not certain.