59
Ignoring the climate emergency (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 week ago by DougHolland@lemmy.world to c/aiop@lemmy.world
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments

• Global food collapse looms amid heat and water stress, warns new study

• Most states continue to funnel money toward highway expansion, locking in climate pollution, despite new tools to fund green infrastructure

• With Antarctica's climate warming at an unprecedented rate, scientists are battling with dangerously thin ice and equipment falling through into the sea beneath

• ‘Ironic’: climate-driven sea level rise will overwhelm major oil ports, study shows

• Illinois carbon capture project captures almost no carbon

• Soil degradation threatens food supply and scientists are calling for action

• As saltwater flows up the Mississippi River for a third year, the region looks for permanent solutions

• Europe’s conifer trees severely impacted by climate change; urgent action needed

   
Note: When reading news coverage from any corporate-owned source — a newspaper, TV station or network, etc — the facts are generally factual, but the slant favors the rich and powerful.
   
Previously

top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Preventing, or even slowing, climate change (happening) and ecological collapse (close to the point of no return today) won't happen without massive depopulation. Massive depopulation comes with economic and societal collapse.

I've watched the world population go from 3.76 billion when I was born, to 8.03 today. That should scare the living shit out of us. If we could magically dial it in to 2 kids per 2 adults, we'd have a nice, slow slide back. (If it isn't obvious, some kids will die without reproducing.)

All economic systems depend on growth. Yes, line must go up. The same people that say the economy is all gambling and impossible to predict, too complex, are the same people who think their economic ideas can be planned to maintain a steady state. Weird.

tl;dr: Thomas Malthus was right.

[-] cAUzapNEAGLb@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I never noticed before, but my internal monolog mispronounced "reining" as "re-ining", and it makes the meaning much more literal and I like that, also makes "re-ining in" seem redundant

Edit: Doing some light double checking, they do not seem to be fundamentally related

Rein traces back to PIE as *ten: relating to stretching/holding And in traces back to PIE as *en: still meaning in/into/around

this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2025
59 points (100.0% liked)

AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND

913 readers
556 users here now

This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

♦ ♦ ♦

RULES

① Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.

② Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

③ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.

④ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.

⑤ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.

Please also abide by the instance rules.

♦ ♦ ♦

Can't get enough? Visit my blog.

♦ ♦ ♦

Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.

$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.

 

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
DougHolland@lemmy.world