@publius @ScientistRebellion I could not have said it better.

Aside, it's totally unrealistic that we're going to abolish airlines tomorrow. It's just not going to happen.

hot take, climate 

@wolf480pl well, you've got a point.

hot take, climate 

@wolf480pl how about that decentralized Mastodon network, you're posting to?

Shall we abolish that first?

It's funny how we're trying to blame the super rich, when we ourselves are terribly wealthy compared to the rest of the world - according to your link, we output the largest chunk of carbon, of all classes.

"Climate activists" want the rich countries to pay for it - exactly those where the majority of people are on the streets; those where people have the luxury to miss school, and take a day off. Those that buy a new phone every year, and want a car when they turn 18.

@ScientistRebellion @dch yes, I think we better.

I will let you continue to dream of the future, where corporations, billionaires and politicians walk hand-in-hand with us, to solve this problem.

Don't get me wrong, I very much wish so - but that's unrealistic. All I can see is that a bunch of people miss school, which will ultimately hurt education, and thus our chances as society to survive.

@dch @ScientistRebellion "high emission things like planes and crypto"?

Haven't we already found, that planes emit less than 2%? Also, what exactly is "crypto"? I'm sure you are aware, that you are currently posting on a decentralized network, that by definition, uses more compute (and thus, more energy) than ... say Twitter.

@ScientistRebellion @dch on the war point: That's exactly the question. Maybe it was a terrible analogy, but we've proven that we can go 5000 years without innovation, and in less than a human-life, from exotic theory, to atomic bomb.

@ScientistRebellion @dch we already have all the technologies we need? That's what people said in the 1900s, in the 1800s - probably even 2000 years ago.

Population is set to grow, temperature is going to change, and there's a good chance that one of the asteroids that we miss, is going to wipe us out.

If we don't want to die, we have to innovate. There's plenty of resources to have another 100 billion of us - question is, do we have the capabilities to access them, without self-destruction?

@dch @ScientistRebellion ~50 years after we learned how-to fly, we went to the moon. Why? Because the soviets threatened to go first.

How can we replicate that?

I don't doubt for a second, that we could come-up with a better idea than the electric car, and neither do I doubt, that we can develop energy sources that provide infinitely more, than all we have now, combined.

@dch @ScientistRebellion let's call it a war. We're most innovative, when we're at war. Why? Because we all focus on a common goal - defending ourselves against the enemy.

So let's count-up all these hours, which are probably in the billions, and instead of designing ads, and having long discussions and meetings, and hoping for things that aren't going to happen anyway ...

and instead focus on what we do best: INNOVATE.

@ScientistRebellion so in summary, we don't disagree on the problem, but we have vastly different views on how-to achieve these goals.

@ScientistRebellion but you said politicians have failed to act. Conferences have not produced any results ... why are you still pointing to politicians to make a change?

@ScientistRebellion @Voka on one hand you say that politicians have failed, and conferences had no impact - yet on the other hand you say, we have to change the whole system, because consumers "only adapt to the current social models".

So again, isn't it up to the individual to make a change OR for us to innovate, so the transition happens naturally?

@ScientistRebellion @Voka limits on growth where? Your city? Your country? Earth? The universe?

@dch @ScientistRebellion surely not; I'd assume I'm doing more than the average. I rarely fly, don't have a car, and the phone I'm typing this on, is 6? years old.

I just don't believe that ads blaming Lufthansa, politicians, or really the general public is going to change anything.

I believe if anything was to change, this has got to come from somewhere else.

It's easy to go to a demo, or have long discussions on the internet. It's hard to actually walk, or not fly on holiday.

Press release: Use of Google Analytics for web analytics datatilsynet.dk/english/google

«The Danish Data Protection Agency has looked into the tool Google Analytics, its settings, and the terms under which the tool is provided. On the basis of this review, the Danish Data Protection Agency concludes that the tool cannot, without more, be used lawfully.»

@ScientistRebellion I'm glad you make that distinction. Believe it or not, most people want to stop climate change.

I'm also not sure what "getting worse" means, because according to your graphic, we've had hotter and colder periods, even in our short existence as a species.

So you're specifically referring to drastically reducing pollution, which brings me back to my original point:

In your opinion, what's the best way to achieve this?

@ScientistRebellion so let's assume I'm developing a new kind of plastic (let's just call it that for the sake), which doesn't have any of the problems, lasts longer, and costs half as much?

Now I can go and seek investment for the product, scale it up, and sell it on the open market place.

The new product should naturally replace old plastics, as stocks run out. No?

@ScientistRebellion you send me a familiar graphic. How long should I look at it, before commenting, to give the impression that I read "through the resources".

and again, there's no question that we're excessively polluting the planet, but I'm trying to understand how you're planning to "stop climate change"?

Show older
PantherX Community

PantherX Community