Yep I learned about that too recently. Encouraging.
JubilantJaguar
joined 2 years ago
This has to do with the terrifying shifting baseline theory. Every generation can only compare within its own lifetime. The baseline of what is considered normal can therefore slowly drift without anybody noticing. When the planet is 90% dead, people will only be whining about how much better it was a few decades previously when it was only 80% dead, oblivious that there was once a time when it was completely alive.
This post breaks literally rules #1, #2 and #3 of this community. Crazy.
Mods please wake up and DO YOUR JOB.
To be clear, the problem is a factor of total population and per-capita economic activity. So reducing either will logically mitigate the problem. (The X factor being technology.)
You seem to be advocating global genocide so your take is rightly unpopular.
But clearly population is a major part of this problem. The sheer figure for human biomass is totally unsustainable for any kind of healthy global ecosystem. Personally I find it irritating that there are so many who deny these inconvenient facts.
Completely agree. That one was a terrible take.
Growthism is a de-facto religion IMO. The obsession with this weirdly abstract indicator is obviously irrational.
Breaks rule #2 completely. Not a showerthought.
THIS IS NOT A SHOWERTHOUGHT. This just an opinion. There already a ton of places to put your banal talking points like this. Why can't you put them there??
For examples of what a showerthought is, look on the right. Another one was posted 2 minutes after this very post:
"With all due respect" could imply that no respect is due and therefore none is given
That is a showerthought.
PS: Want more substance? It breaks rule #4 partially and rule #3 totally.
36
‘Trophies’ shared on social media reveal scale of mass bird slaughter in Lebanon
(news.mongabay.com)
For info, in the EU you need an entry-level motorbike license to ride this. That means a one-day course (expensive) if you already have a car license, otherwise a 20-hour course plus exam.
That's for anything over 4kW and this thing does 8.
At 11kW you would need a full motorbike license. Which means passing a theory exam, multiple (hard) riding tests, and in some countries even an interview where you have to regurgitate accident statistics. It's all extremely expensive and inconvenient. I speak from bitter experience. That's how much they don't want young idiots riding powerful two-wheelers.
This is becoming a worrying problem. But it's hardly a surprise given that you can now buy electric "bikes" that weigh more than motorbikes once did and basically have pedals as decoration.
Source is one of the few mainstream outlets (Vox being another) that is still talking about climate as a problem to be solved rather an irritating distraction from today's shiny new crises du jour, namely superpower competition and "catastrophic" low birth rates.
Back on topic, there's a paradox here. The aviation industry is naturally dragging its feet at every opportunity, but really that's logical. Unlike other industries (even cars, to a point), there is literally nothing this industry can do to "succeed" except shrink. Due to basic rules of fluid dynamics, it is extremely inefficient to travel fast. Doing it by burning fossils is doubly disastrous, but solving this particular challenge with any technology is a massively tall order.
On a planet of 9 billion, air travel is just not scalable. If you can do it without frying the planet, that's only because somebody else is not doing it.
view more: next ›
Unexpected take.