What room is there for anything with a negative budget?
100% agree, but the worst side of the human condition is in control and they want to burn baby burn it all down.
Nature bats last. Climate change is the real winner in all these wars.
Oh boy, I get to post my doom call!
If you live for another 50 years, you WILL witness the collapse of civilization. We have blown past every single warming-limit goal, and are not only continuing to warm the planet but are doing it at an accelerating pace.
Its getting warmer, and its getting warmer FASTER.
Very soon the major breadbaskets of the world will no longer be able to grow crops. As soon as the grain agricultural industry collapses, billions, with a B, will starve.
We are witnessing the end of modern civilization, which will end just as fast as it arrived.
That is just ONE thing that will collapse, not to mention the mid Atlantic ocean current that makes Europe liveable or the melting of the ice caps, raising sea level and stopping the circum polar current around Antarctica.
We are so irrevocably fucked. It is literally too late to do anything. Zero emissions from right now would still mean we are fucked.
We are witnessing the end of modern civilization, which will end just as fast as it arrived.
So it’ll take 10,000 years?
Civilizations and cultures survive the loss of >30% of their population all the time. The black death, the columbian disease exchange, the mongol empire, the collapse of the western roman empire, etc… Losing billions of people will be terrible, of course, but the billions that survive will still exist and work to survive, and they will be people worth fighting for.
Current food production is over 10 times what is necessary to feed everyone on the planet, with the vast majority of it being wasted on the meat and dairy industry that we can just stop. Food forests require more labor per calorie but are far more resilient to climate change and require far less land area, allowing the remaining agricultural land to rewild and act as a carbon sink.
The AMOC (atlantic current) is “making Europe livable” by making it warmer. Helpfully, climate change will do the same. In pessimistic scenarios, Europe returns to the current average temperature after a decade or two. Again, yes, in this scenario >90% of current human habitation would probably have to be abandoned and human population may dip below one billion, but those hundreds of millions of people still deserve the best chance we can give them.
If our best efforts mean we can only keep a billion people alive, it would be worth it.
If our best efforts mean we can only keep a million people alive, it would be worth it.
If our best efforts mean we can only keep ten thousand people alive, it would be worth it.
Every kiloton of CO2 we stop the emission of is a life saved, and the vast majority are emitted in the US, Europe, and China. If you live in any of these regions, there is so much you can do.
How come the crops won’t grow?
The areas where most food grows will be rather hot and dry, but with lots of storms.
Some years will get things like atmospheric rivers that flood everything.
Extreme weather events will be the new normal basically everywhere.
Widespread drought, aridification caused by said droughts, and the average increase in temperatures will disproportionately affect those countries that are in sub tropical/super temperate zones. Those countries are where a vast majority of our grain staples are grown.
We’ll combat global warming with nuclear winter! 🙃
Throw another hotdog on the uranium! It’s almost time for The President’s Daily Truthcast.
We were never gonna get the carbon thing under control.
as A physics channel person as said, countries have largely abandoned global climate change for a while now. they are mostly going YOLO with oil now. plus there are subtle acts of undermining/sabotaging environmental activism for years, like funding “carbon footprint companies” so they dont have to reduce thier emissions, and funding “eco-activists” you hear in the news defacing public properties to incite ire against protestors.(mona lisa, gluing yourself to cars,etc)
Some science channels were called out for promoting these companies as a way of reducing your carbon footprint, luckily they stopped once they found out.
Not while we still allow psychopaths to be in control.
True enough. But even if we had gotten a magic benevolent dictator decades ago, the damage was already done. We’re just piling it on at this point. In some aspects, maybe a speed run into hell will work out better than a long braking. Better overall, but still a disaster.
No. The less carbon that is added to the atmosphere, the less severe the damage will be. Economic collapse will only increase the motivation to rely on cheap and dirty fuels, not to mention the incentives to cut down all the trees and exterminate all the wildlife.
Less total carbon. It’s morbid, but burning ourselves out faster ends up with a smaller number than if we persist in this. If you go with some assumption that economic collapse allows us to survive… well I guess you have a point.
That level of futility is counter productive.
it’s not comments like these that are holding us back
Seems most things are. Just being realistic.
if we had gotten a solution years ago, we would experience a fraction of the effects.
Correct. Oligarchs are responsible for the murder of billions of humans. Absurd, disgusting, shameful… yet, wholly predictable.
And just like carbon credits, they’ll just throw money at it to “offset” the carbon budget.
Reducing population goes a long way towards helping though. It all depends on just how apocalyptic the world war is
Presumably the impact would greatest if the population in areas with highest per capita usage were reduced first, right?
You’d probably need to put the oil out of reach of the survivors.
Eh, a few old demented psychopaths armed with nuclear warheads? I’d wager to say pretty apocalyptic.
Bethesda this IS NOT what I wanted for Fallout 5
we are literally in so many ways, which is why i’m resorting to memeing
Priorities:
political-motivation ALWAYS outranks objectivity, among the political.
Welcome to Accelerationism’s grass-roots edition.
_ /\ _
Unless…
yeah the spike during ww3 would be bad but the new great depression would do wonders before ww4
insert Einstein quote about ww4 being fought with sticks here
WW4? I like your spunky optimism.
Orrr, keep up with me on the optimism, it would be like post WWII in which the pendulum will swing the other way.
Post WWII did a few ok things for social policy, but didn’t do much at all to reduce GHG emissions - except maybe China’s one child policy and a more natural reduction in fertitlity in many other countries. but despite those , global population has still gone up 3-4x in that period.
Western world did begin to reduce coal usage but greedily replaced it with petroleum products. Lots of them also axed efficient public transport systems like intercity railways and local tram/streetcar systems in favour of inefficient but more convenient (up to the point of congestion) personal automobiles and quite staggering numbers (billions/trillions/fuckillions) of passenger km of aviation. I’m struggling to imagine a less efficient way to organise people and space that gave rise to that. Maybe we could have everyone live in Europe, work in Australia and go to USA for groceries.
Only major economic recessions like 2008 or covid actually cause emissions to fall in any material way - and they don’t last close to long enough. Almost ever other clean tech thing of efficiency improvement is offset by increasing demand.
A few low density countries like Iceland and Norway were able to build enough hydro power to at least get clean electricity but , Norway? erm hardly anti-fossil fuel. Hydro is deemed impractical/inhumane in denser populated countries where they refuse to flood out all the valley dwellers.
Oh god no…you’re suggesting ANOTHER round of boomers??? THATS the reward for all this suffering??? We haven’t even gotten rid of all the old boomers yet!
as long as we lose it will be ok. we as in humanity.
Just switch to these and it should be fine.
Why are you under the impression that there is a world war coming? What specific events? I’m genuinely asking.
The global empire of capital is trapped in two losing wars of attrition and keeps on desperately escalating in both cases?
USA is not with Ukraine, if you imply that. Trump is a russian asset and he did lift sanctions from russia just this week, alongside with ramping oil prices to the roof.
Unless you assume that russia is losing the attrition war (which is very unlikely with @lemmy.ml), your comment doesn’t make any sense.
I do not have the patience to have this stupid fight today. Ukraine is definitely a US proxy. Every president since George W Bush has been preparing for and escalating this war. It’s easy to get confused if you get distracted by the puppet show instead of watching the flow of dollars and bombs.
The war in Iran has sealed Ukraine’s fate. All the cards they had left to play have now been neutralized. It doesn’t matter how much propaganda you believe about the Ukraine war because it’s coming to a rapid conclusion
Alright, I’ll bite. How does the war with Iran “seal Ukraine’s fate”?
3 factors:
- Whether or not you believe Russia’s economy was “just about to collapse” from sanctions, that is all up in smoke now
- The Western armories were already running bare. Now, Ukraine will probably never receive another air defense interceptor. There won’t be any tomahawks to give even if they got some working ground launchers.
- Ukraine’s European backers were already under tremendous economic strain from having the highest energy prices in the world. They are EXTREMELY exposed to this current energy shock.
The combined forces of the West were already losing before suffering this massive economic shock and gigantic military expenditure
Those three are all real factors, but I think you are exaggerating their size and importance.
The increase in oil price and softening of US sanctions will benefit the Russians, but it won’t make the war economy sustainable.
Western armories are running bare, but the same is true for the Russian ones. Both Ukraine and Russia are mostly using equipment as it’s being produced, and both Ukraine and the rest of Europe has been ramping up production capacity. I imagine you’re right that it’s worse for Ukraine to lose access to American air defense systems than it is for Russia to lose access to Iranian Shaheds.
The high energy prices are a problem in Europe, but compared to the situation in Russia (or Ukraine, for that matter) there’s nothing EXTREME about it.
The reason peace negotiations have been hopeless, is because the Ukrainians and the Russians can’t agree on where the war is headed. The Russians believe that if they just keep going, the Europeans will get bored and give up, while Ukrainians believe that they can keep going longer than the Russians because they are supported by a European economy that is not in an unsustainable “war mode”.
Who is right is up to us, and given that every single demand that the Russians have is against some pretty fundamental international law, it is in the interest of future European peace to ensure that the Ukrainians are right - and to make that as obvious as possible to the Russians so that peace negotiations become possible.
Why are you asking me a question? I just asked you one. Why would that instigate a world war? I’m asking you because I don’t know, not because I’m trying to argue with you.
Honestly, I wrote my comment with a questioning tone because I wasn’t sure if your original comment was being sarcastic or something. I guess people don’t understand that this Iran war is much more serious than Vietnam and Afghanistan put together, on top of the Ukraine war still ongoing.
If the strait isn’t open in the next few months, we could be seeing outbreaks of global starvation unlike anything seen in decades. That’s just the beginning and I wish I was exaggerating
Ok, so the strait doesn’t open. Who joins whose side?
The line has already been drawn. The only meaningful wildcards are the Turks and the Egyptians. The question you should be asking is how long until the gulf monarchies run out of staple grain? That hits much sooner than the global fertilizer crisis, we won’t feel the business end of that until harvest season in the northern hemisphere
And then do we all die?
Now you’re starting to get the gravity of the situation
It’d probably play out as Iran, China, Russia (eventually North Korea) v. US, Israel - then all the dick swinging and pissing contest and empty threats would push UK, France and Germany in but they’d just be hoping US would be doing all the heavy lifting because honestly they want to be the “heroes” anyway so why not. Then some bickering and hootin and hollering would happen between Russia, China and US and nuclear threats begin. It’d likely be a stalemate as it’d be considered MAD (mutually assured destruction) but who knows with these crazy assholes.
There’s a few of tracks leading to this actually. You got cracks in old alliances forming, a mostly failed attempt at revanchism from Russia and the USA getting it’s fingers stuck in a mouse trap, and many many more geopolitical factors that heighten tension between states. Then on another track, you have a worsening climate situation that is MUCH more serious than most western leaders are daring to admit, this ties back to the first as states will begin to take drastic efforts to control worsening conditions. Finally there has been a technological shift in a variety of ways, drones of course. Along that same vein, China has quietly been catching up to the US in terms of military tech, this isn’t as flashy but it is monumentous.
Multiple brush fire wars which are starting to interlink, both wars starting to pull in other countries through alliances, countries forming up new alliances to protect themselves.
This video explains well https://youtu.be/V--ZqMGjNVs
IMO WWIII started with the invasion of Ukraine.
Now we have both US and Russia participating in war.
If china takes Taiwan then you’ll have the big 3 which will effect pretty much all other countries one way or another.
Trump has taken the US as far out of the war in Ukraine as the American people will let him, it’s not great for peace, we should all have ramped up the aid a lot earlier, but to say that the US is participating in the war… that’s really stretching it.
That’s not a world war, it’s a handful of regional conflict level wars.
A world war is defined by the scale and involvement level. The world wars reshaped continents and put most of the world on wartime production footing… We’re very, very far from that
Taiwan had the ability to kick off a world war, because the whole world relies on TSMC. But the fabs being built in China, the US, and the EU seem to me to be a compromise between the power blocks - once they’re completed NATO will probably just let China invade Taiwan without lifting a finger
WWIII isn’t a big concern of mine… The conditions just aren’t unfolding that way
But do 3 Independent Wars do count as a single world war?
Are they independent? There are large coalitions, across various wars. And trade of all key resources and tech makes it all very connected to eachother and easy to get dragged in for many countries. Actively trying to stay a neutral country becomes harder and harder, we’re for sure heading in that direction.
If it affects the world in an unavoidable way, why wouldn’t it?
Before WWI, a war halfway around the world didn’t affect you. Now it raises prices within a week of starting.
In the US, prices jump the day before any conflict actually starts…
