1101
submitted 1 year ago by Pepo48@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Catpuccino@lemmy.one 185 points 1 year ago

The whole situation with climate change feels so hopeless.

[-] Xcf456@lemmy.nz 145 points 1 year ago

I think the worst part of it is that its not actually hopeless, at least not in theory. It's just that we, or more accurately the people with actual power, refuse to act because it would mean slightly less profit.

[-] guriinii@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago

I fully believe that if the world comes together, a united global effort, it is solvable, but we won't.

[-] Alperto@lemmy.ml 27 points 1 year ago

Me too, specially when I was younger I thought we could change the world for good if united. I saw cristal clear that the rich wanted to be richer at the expense of the poorer, but as I grew older and saw the reality and stupidity of the world (Like Trump, a massively rich guy being massively voted by the poorest and less educated people) I lost hope. I came to realize that education and stoicism and the best tools the human race has to progress to a healthy society. So that’s what I try to share now when I can.

[-] Historical_General@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm going to gently remind you that Drumpf's base is actually on avg. wealthier than the opposition's base. That's why you get those obnoxious trucks, flags and infinite merchandise (courtesy of Chinese workers).

No need to smear the common people, it's simply a fact that democracy is not a real tool for change.

[-] Something_Complex@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Nono look at the 10 poorest states in America(with worse living conditions). They all voted majority Trump, some of the porest counties in the USA are literally voting 80% for trump

[-] Historical_General@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If you listen to Obama on that podcast recently (whom those people probably voted for too), paraphrasing: he says economic anxiety makes people prone to risk taking, emotional voting and feel racial resentment.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] theangryseal@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Though I mostly agree with you, sometimes I feel human nature is just ugly.

Some very highly educated people have done some very terrible things throughout history.

(Sorry about submitting the half sentence, I meant to hit cancel and then decided to commit after that blunder.)

[-] Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Though I mostly agree with you, sometimes I feel human nature is just ugly.

This is not true. Humans are created by the material conditions they find themselves in. "Human nature" when in an abundant environment is very different, we can see this among remaining hunter gatherer tribes like the Hadza (watch/read the whole thread).

Living in capitalism is what makes people the way you see them. Competition for resources with your fellow workers and an endless toil for the benefit of someone else enforced by the threat of homelessness and death if you don't take part.

Being an asshole under capitalism is as natural as coughing is in a smoke filled burning building. If you don't know anything different you can't see that to constantly cough is not the natural way of human beings. When you take people and put them in different material conditions you get a completely different outcome.

[-] Something_Complex@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Aigh....let's say you in fact can blame greed and capitalism alone.

Haven't we all agreed that extremes are unessential?? It's capitalism's fault, it's comunism fault....world isn't white and black it's grey.

It depends where you are and what it depends how you use it...fuck sake reality is way too complex for you to do these types of statement man.

If we are going to guess then mine is we need something more in the middle...

[-] Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You make a statement about complexity but you're not actually saying anything. This is all wishy washy.

There is no middle between "the workers hold power" and "the bourgeoisie should hold power". There is no middle between "private property should exist" and "private property should not exist". There is no middle between "profit should be the driving force of development" and "the human development index should be the driving force of development".

Your wishy washy "we need a middle" is nonsense if you can not put into words what that fundamentally means in terms of actual functioning policy and societal design. Who holds power is THE essential question here. Capitalist society functions as a dictatorship-of-the-bourgeoisie. Socialists want the opposite, a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat. Flipping the power on its head and putting the workers in charge of the outcomes instead of the bourgeoisie.

If you can not fundamentally describe in absolute terminology what you think society needs to do in order to change the current situation then all you are doing in your opposition to people who do want change is supporting keeping it the way it currently is. That puts you on the side of the climate death cult driving us towards the inevitable end.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Piers@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

The biggest issue with our environment that drives these problems is that human brains can only reliably grok a few hundred other humans as being people. Beyond that, to a greater or lesser degree, anyone else just feels like an object (which is why we feel upset when people we know die but the statistics of how many people die each day globally don't have a similar effect.)

Some of us cope better than others but fundamentally any environment that requires humans to be reliant on interacting with over a few hundred other people will lead to people treating each other as objects.

It's why conservative people often feel it would be inconceivable to mistreat someone they personally know but will casually do profoundly cruel things to people they don't. If you view their actions towards people outside of their sphere of personhood through the lense of what is and isn't an appropriate way to treat an object rather than a person they often seem perfectly naturally.

[-] Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I know the research you're talking about here but don't think it should be viewed as something that makes people incapable of empathy to those outside their core group. It makes it harder, but that hasn't stopped entire nations of people moving hard left towards extreme vocal empathy among one another as the working class. Unity, solidarity and love for one another is demonstrably possible among very large numbers it just requires the right set of prerequisites to achieve, these prerequisites are what socialists should be working towards ticking off in order to set the stage for a wider revolutionary movement.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Nezgul@reddthat.com 14 points 1 year ago

I am fully convinced that won't materialize until a major Western city or province/state/territory/[insert administrative unit here] gets catastrophically and irreparably fucked up.

[-] Sightline@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Not even then.

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Neoliberals won't (nor will the reactionaries they've carefully trained) and unfortunatly we've let them infest all major political parties and media outlets across most of the globe.

With these managed democracies, they're able to delay actual progress until the mining and oil execs are satisified with their obscene wealth (which is never going to happen).

Until these people are pried from their positions of power, everybody "coming together" is meaningless.

The solution is going to require immediate, strict, drastic regulations and billions of dollars of research and investment that will never turn into profits, with much of it financed through taxing the rich appropriately.

Neoliberals hate every one of those ideas and have positioned themselves so they can veto all of them.

Voting genuine progressives and ensuring they keep their promises is the only way out because the best we'll ever get out of this neoliberal psuedo-left is "Maybe we can find a way to save the world that's more profitable than just letting everyone die".

[-] electriccars@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

So it's hopeless. Lol

[-] 4ce@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

Not sure if this will give you hope or not, but one thing to consider is that we could still make it far worse, or put differently, that it's still in our power to stop that from happening. We can't change the fact that climate change already has noticeable negative consequences today, nor that global temperatures will rise by at least 1.5° towards the end of the century (compared to 1950-1980), probably more. But we do have a somewhat realistic chance of keeping it at around 2° or below (see e.g. here or here for easy simulations in your browser). The point is that every tenth of a degree counts, and our action or lack thereof now might well make the difference between it "just" getting bad with regular droughts, crop failures, some regions becoming temporarily uninhabitable due to wet bulb temperatures and so on on the one hand, or all of that at a much larger scale leading to societal collapse if we don't act at all. We live in the worst extinction event the earth has seen since the asteroid that killed the non-bird dinosaurs, but we can still keep it at that instead of turning it into the worst extinction event the earth has ever seen. Luckily, governments (and industry) largely have at least accepted that climate change is a thing, and in Europe and the Americas green-house gas emission have actually already been sinking for the last 15 years or so. Don't get me wrong, it's not great, and these governments still should do much more, but it could also be worse, and the fact that we're lowering emissions despite our politicians generally being very friendly with industry could give at least a sliver of hope. The emissions of China and India (and the rest of Asia) are still rising, but show signs of decelerated growth at least, and in Africa emissions are still fairly low and rising rather slowly, with a chance that some less developed countries might more or less just skip a big chunk of carbon-based industrialisation in favour of renewables. Altogether this means that we're already on a way to avoid the worst possible scenarios, and still have the power to keep it towards the lower end of the scale as far as terrible outcomes are concerned.

In addition, while individuals have always less power than whole governments or industries, there are nevertheless things anyone reading this could do, e.g.:

  • Voting for parties that favour stronger climate action, and perhaps even more importantly, not supporting those who do less or even nothing. You can also protest or try to influence your government in some other ways.
  • Reduce your personal impact by not consuming animal products (in particular meat and dairy), not flying if you can avoid it, not buying stuff you don't really need, and not having (more) kids.
  • Tell other people you know who might listen to do those things. Many people favour climate action in principle, but are too lazy, scared or just otherwise preoccupied to actually start doing stuff on their own. You kicking them in the butt or leading by example can motivate them and in turn other people they might now.

If you're reading this and whether or not you're already doing some of those things, I'm sure you can find at least some things you could do (I know I can, and I'm trying to put it into practice), which might in turn also make you feel less depressed about the situation. As mentioned before, I'm not saying that we're in a great situation, but whining about it helps nobody, and we're still in a situation where we have the power to stop things from getting even worse.

[-] Xcf456@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 year ago

All great points and I agree 100%. Thanks for taking the time to write this

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] 4ce@lemm.ee 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not sure if this will give you hope or not, but one thing to consider is that we could still make it far worse, or put differently, that it's still in our power to stop that from happening. We can't change the fact that climate change already has noticeable negative consequences today, nor that global temperatures will rise by at least 1.5° towards the end of the century (compared to 1950-1980), probably more. But we do have a somewhat realistic chance of keeping it at around 2° or below (see e.g. here or here for easy simulations in your browser). The point is that every tenth of a degree counts, and our action or lack thereof now might well make the difference between it "just" getting bad with regular droughts, crop failures, some regions becoming temporarily uninhabitable due to wet bulb temperatures and so on on the one hand, or all of that on a much larger scale leading to societal collapse if we don't act at all. We live in the worst extinction event the earth has seen since the asteroid that killed the non-bird dinosaurs, but we can still keep it at that instead of turning it into the worst extinction event the earth has ever seen. Luckily, governments (and industry) largely have at least accepted that climate change is a thing, and in Europe and the Americas green-house gas emission have actually already been sinking for the last 15 years or so. Don't get me wrong, it's not great, and these governments still should do much more, but it could also be worse, and the fact that we're lowering emissions despite our politicians generally being very friendly with industry could give at least a sliver of hope. The emissions of China and India (and the rest of Asia) are still rising, but show signs of decelerated growth at least, and in Africa emissions are still fairly low and rising rather slowly, with a chance that some less developed countries might more or less just skip a big chunk of carbon-based industrialisation in favour of renewables. Altogether this means that we're already on a way to avoid the worst possible scenarios, and still have the power to keep it towards the lower end of the scale as far as terrible outcomes are concerned.

In addition, while individuals have always less power than whole governments or industries, there are nevertheless things anyone reading this could do, e.g.:

  • Voting for parties that favour stronger climate action, and perhaps even more importantly, not supporting those who do less or even nothing. You can also protest or try to influence your government in some other ways.
  • Reduce your personal impact by not consuming animal products (in particular meat and dairy), not flying if you can avoid it, not buying stuff you don't really need, and not having (more) kids. Edit: Also try to favour public transport over driving your own car, and if you need a car, try to use a small, electrical one to reduce emissions.
  • Tell other people you know who might listen to do those things. Many people favour climate action in principle, but are too lazy, scared or just otherwise preoccupied to actually start doing stuff on their own. You kicking them in the butt or leading by example can motivate them and in turn other people they might now.

If you're reading this and whether or not you're already doing some of those things, I'm sure you can find at least some things you could do (I know I can, and I'm trying to put it into practice), which might in turn also make you feel less depressed about the situation. As mentioned before, I'm not saying that we're in a great situation, but whining about it helps nobody, and we're still in a situation where we have the power to stop things from getting even worse.

[-] nyar@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Can also create isolated cells to coordinate .... I'm gonna stop before this gets added to my file.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Catpuccino@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago

Thank you this was actually really nice to read. I feel like everywhere I look is more bad news about the climate it's nice to see we can at least still mitigate it

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Human problems have human solutions.

The science is clear, now it's an engineering problem.

[-] Wodge@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately, it's actually a political problem.

[-] bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Another human problem, so solvable.

It's not like a super volcano or asteroid.

[-] kimagure@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

Asteroid problem is more solvable than political problem.
Armageddon solved it like in 2 hours or so.

[-] DarkThoughts@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

Is it though?
CEOs don't want to risk their profits.
Politicians don't want to risk their terms.
Voters don't want to lower their living standards.

No one really wants to do something.

[-] NotSpez@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Appropriate username, but I (unfortunately) agree

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Locuralacura@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There's like 100 people with the power to make the change and they've all decided to invest the money and power in self preservation. It's the biggest 'fuck you proletariat scum' I could imagine. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff

load more comments (28 replies)
[-] sorenant@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Dropping a big ice cube on the ocean every now an then?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] redballooon@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

My 13yo refuses to discuss the topic. He says he's already been traumatized by it.

[-] md5crypto@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

What a ❄️ ❄️

load more comments (1 replies)
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
1101 points (100.0% liked)

News

23266 readers
3230 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS