Misc.

Why are people so worried about climate change?

New / EngTTNT
Dec 3

Historically, we have been able to solve all of our problems and come up on top.

At some point the incentive for fixing the climate will be so high that it will become a race for corporations to comply.

At some point we will advance so quickly with AI that this alone will take care of the climate change problems for us.

So, why are people so anxious? Or, are people anxious about it? I feel like people around me are freaking out.

I personally think there is a problem but I have no doubts that we will fix it with technology. Nothing is irreversible.

115 VOTESALLOW MULTIPLE SELECTIONS
VOTEVIEW RESULT

comments

Add a comment
  • LinkedIn parade
    I don’t think you understand. It’s not like one day, we can come together as the human race and “fix earth”. If we continue doing what we are, it will literally be unrepairable.
    Dec 310
    • New / EngTTNT
      OP
      How do you know that? You wouldn’t even be able to explain what you mean with “literally be unrepairable”.

      There was a time when we thought cars would be impossible. Flying would be impossible.

      If you go back 200 years and show the brightest minds a smartphone they wouldn’t even be able to comprehend what it is.

      We have satellites in space and a damn robot on Mars sending pictures back to earth. We have nanotechnology and we can grow human organs in labs...

      What is it that’s unrepairable?
      Dec 3
    • New / EngTTNT
      OP
      It’s not that I don’t understand. I’m just more optimistic than you... Just like the people that believed that humans would be able to fly one day.
      Dec 3
    • Oath / Engfat
      Sure, it’s not unrepairable. But it’s quite close. The reasoning is that we have extracted so much energy from fossil fuels that in order to reverse it, we need to put back in that much energy.

      We can’t generate that much renewable energy.
      Dec 3
    • New / EngTTNT
      OP
      We can’t or we haven’t discovered how to yet? Your mindset is closed for new technology.

      My whole argument is based on that technology will push through and find a way.
      Dec 3
    • Oath / Engfat
      Technology is there. Policy is not.

      We plant more trees. Reverse deforestation. Very low tech. But is there enough incentives for it?
      Dec 3
    • New / EngTTNT
      OP
      Obviously technology isn’t there. If it “was there” we would have next to endless energy sources and be able to repair the ozone layer with tiny controllable particles or something like that.

      I’m not talking about putting a seed in the ground to grow a tree when I say technology. I’m talking about things that we, as humans, consider impossible today, but will be obvious for the next generation.
      Dec 3
    • Oath / Engfat
      Dude, you can’t just pray to whatever deity that you worship and hope the solution will just come.

      The solution is right in front of you, but you have to be able to see it.
      Dec 3
    • New / EngTTNT
      OP
      Yes, the solution is right in front of me, just not physically, but in time.

      We have been advancing within technology fields exponentially and I have no doubt that we will get there.

      I’ve already written about politics, greed, and such in other replies. But I don’t understand why people are so pessimistic when the world is getting better and better every year.

      People are just depressed because they are feed with so much negative news when in fact humanity keeps advancing for the better.
      Dec 3
    • hope for the best and prepare for the worst. do you want to just rely on the possibility that the technology will be developed just in time to reverse the problem? also, it's cute how you think AI can solve this in a short period of time. anything at the planet scale takes time to change and establish equilibrium.
      Dec 3
  • Apple NP Hard
    Climate models have been for now 10 years now. And they have been consistently wrong in making predictions.

    They initially predicted global warming, which was changed to climate change.

    Now the most recent NASA data shows that land temperatures have been pretty stable, while only the ocean temperatures have gone up by 0.8 degrees in 50 years. So, they decided to combine the graphs together into one, instead of separate graphs, as a graph on land temperatures being constant will not fit the narrative.
    Dec 32
    • Amazon / Engdh3n4n6brb
      I think I'll take the word of 99% of climate scientists and NASA over yours.
      Hope you don't get offended.
      Dec 3
    • Dolby
      MoreTaco

      Dolby

      BIO
      Just browsing. Very happy at current company.
      MoreTacomore
      NP Hard, source? Fox News? Breitbart?
      Dec 3
  • LinkedIn / Eng
    hitme k

    LinkedInEng

    PRE
    Intel
    hitme kmore
    Everything is not reversible.
    Dec 30
  • Cisco randynash
    Because 50% of the population is actively impeding the changes (socially and economically) required to save our sinking cities (we're not talking about Uganda folks. Miami already routinely sinks every year)

    It's like the 50% of the population opposing farm tractors because it makes them lose their property (ahem, slaves).

    A lot of people have vested interest in coal, polluting vehicles, polluting factories. These tend to be rich old owners or old factory workers. In trying to save the future, these guys would have to give up their way of life.

    They don't want to give it up. They want to maximize their wealth and then die off. They don't care what happens to future generations.

    If you are a young person, you need to understand that entitled boomers are cannibalizing your future.
    Dec 313
    • Cisco randynash
      The problem is solvable but it requires investments in those technologies and oldies not actively blocking it.

      We could've made electric cars even in the last decade and been leaders at that. Why couldn't we? Because car lobbies, oil lobbies actively bought out senators to keep gas taxes low, give subsidies to fracking etc. instead of investing in future tech.

      The consequence? We've damaged a lot of the environment. We're nowhere close to electric car production on a large scale. Chinese and Japanese industries flourished and have a headstart.

      Plain and simple, it is not a technological problem at all. It is a political problem about where should our collective investments go. Should they go towards securing our future or to the pockets of oil execs?
      Dec 3
    • New / EngTTNT
      OP
      The political system is constantly getting more transparent. Internet has connected the world and today, if a leader in Cambodia does wrong, I can know about it from the US.

      This wasn’t true 50 years ago. We have already done massive advancements on the political front and we are exponentially doing more advancements (with some minor exceptions).

      Within the next 25 years our political system will be more transparent, fairer, and much more technology based - I am certain of that.
      Dec 3
    • Cisco randynash
      I think you've got it wrong. With more connectedness, fake news has increased manifold, much much more than truth.

      I'm afraid that politics will (already has) become a reality TV show, popularity contest. It serves the wealthy corporations lobbying for their own interests.

      That's why you don't see meaningful changes in healthcare, guns, climate, drugs, data security, education when the solutions are simple. They all could've been easily solved in the span of last 20 years. Yet, theyve become worse.

      Why? Why isn't it getting better? Why do we pay $100,000 for a treatment that costs $20,000 as soon as we cross our borders?

      Vested interests. Lobbyists. You're immature to think technology is the blocker. Nope, It's politics. And that a lot of our population is brainwashed and living with fear of any change
      Dec 3
    • New / EngTTNT
      OP
      Hold on.

      Education have never been as accessible as it is today. How is education getting worse?

      Child mortality has never been as low as it is today, how is that getting worse?

      We live longer and healthier than ever before in history of humanity.

      Fewer people die in wars than ever before.

      More people have food on the table than ever before.

      Medication is more accessible to poor countries than ever before.

      I don’t think that technology is the prime blocker. Politics is slowing us down, I agree on that. But technology will fix that part too.

      1) “They have become worse” is a lie.

      2) To call me immature for not agreeing with your extremely pessimistic view is in itself quite immature...

      3) You think everything has gotten worse because you spend your time watching news about terror and destruction instead of focusing on all the GOOD and POSITIVE things that we do and create as humans.
      Dec 3
    • Cisco randynash
      I never said EVERYTHING has gotten worse. I'm specifically talking about politics. And I'm specifically pointing to a supreme Court ruling Citizens United vs fec.

      What you are too immature to realize is:
      Education is accessible only if you sell your future to the rich (by debt) at a very young age

      Child mortality is lower only if you work to make a corporation rich, which will give you insurance. If not, good luck paying $500 a month per person for insurance. Good luck paying for pregnancy medication with this.

      We live longer and healthier because the old get Medicare payed for by the young. Who will pay for the young when they themselves become old? How will they pay for these high prices?

      Fewer people don't die of wars. Bush administration specifically waged a fake war on Iraq, killed millions of innocent people to cater to oil companies

      More people have what kind of food? McDonalds? Where is healthy food?

      Maybe it's not obvious to you because you may be young or rich.

      Ask how a 45 yr old middle manager is doing with rising healthcare costs, rising damages due to changing climate and living a life on debt.

      If this is not clear, it doesn't have to be like this.
      Dec 3
    • New / EngTTNT
      OP
      I grew up in Scandinavia after being a war refugee.

      Also, I don’t agree with much you say. From my point of view you simply sound like someone that only sees the sour and bitter side of things.

      We live longer because 100 years ago we didn’t have the same medicine - at all. We literally didn’t have it because we didn’t know it existed.

      Fewer people do die in wars. Remember WW1, WW2? For what stupid reasons did people die there?

      I was born in one of those countries where the US waged a fake war. Yes, it is horrible. But it’s still better than the world was 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 500 years ago.

      You are too blinded and overwhelmed by all the bad news of your social media feed. Take a pause and read about all the good things that is happening in the world instead and perhaps you will be happier.
      Dec 3
    • Cisco randynash
      Relax. If you're European, go to EU. Life definitely is better there.

      Those same rules don't apply to the average American.

      Wars in DEVELOPED world have ended. Not the ones in middle east. Let's not even go to American excursions in Vietnam. Are you saying only the wars in Europe and America are the ones that matter?

      Look, life has gotten better in many ways. But it has also gotten bad.

      Now you might be ok with no more progress to the future. That's fine.

      I want to go to the future with good climate, no sinking cities, no loss of soil fertility, drinking water for humans, fishes not sting because of pollution, cheap and affordable healthcare, not a life of debt.

      Either you want that too (which means you're going to have to fight the incumbent entrenched interests) or you just want to live in the dream of how much better it has become. (Of course it has but why let it get worse?)
      Dec 3
    • New / EngTTNT
      OP
      But it’s not getting worse and no one is letting it get worse... People are working hard everyday.

      There is more initiative for making the world a better place now than ever before.

      People are more aware than ever before on how to sort their trash, how to be environmental friendly, use more public transportation and so on...

      What I’m saying is that:

      1) Why are people so anxious when it’s clearly going better. I’m not saying stop fighting - but why be so bitter, anxious, and depressed? People around me are freaking out while I’m quite positive.

      2) Technology and history is on our side. Why be so pessimistic?

      Who said I would be ok with no more progress? I’m the one pushing for technological progression here.

      People are so entitled with what they have so they forget how quickly we have developed as a species. How fucking hard life was for our grandparents.
      Dec 3
    • Cisco randynash
      1. Because the magnitude of the problem is of a war footing. We cannot afford to flip flop around while cities are already sinking. There's no quick fix. So why impede progress by incentivizing polluting, heating industries? Now would be a good time (actually last decade) to just take this as a challenge and build infrastructure around non polluting, non heating products. Let's start creating the ecosystem because it won't get created one day when a politician wakes up. By then, it might be too late. It probably already is given how many creatures are extinct but we need to keep making progress. The anxiety is about politicians impeding progress. Not towards what technology can do

      2. Technology is there. Politics is not on our side. Time is running out for many cities, many communities, many habitats.

      Look, it's not going to get solved by technology on December 5 just because you agreed to improve investments on december 4.

      It takes investments, incentives and ecosystems for innovators to thrive. These things take years if not decades. By then cape Town will already be having water wars 5 times over.

      Since you're an oldie who knows how much better life has become, do you remember the anxiety about what will happen with cold want and how it took so many decades of leadership to end it?

      This time, the anxiety is about how politics is impeding survival of entire cities.
      Dec 3
    • New / EngTTNT
      OP
      I see, thanks for your perspective! 🙏

      Hehe, I’m just 33. Feel old because I have lived in many countries. And I often talk to old people at bars.
      Dec 3
  • Amazon / Engdh3n4n6brb
    This is unlike any other challenge that we have ever faced. We only have a single home world.

    We are standing on a proverbial train tracks and seeing a train coming right at us. But instead of just getting off the tracks, we are prying for a miracle (technology)

    We have the technology!

    We need good policy to make it happen now.

    Let's get rid of fossil fuels subsidies, and give them to renewables. At least until the market stabilizes
    Dec 30
  • Facebook Whateverrs
    "And I use the analogy of the bacteria in the test tube for why it’s suicidal to look for steady endless growth. Anything growing exponentially has a predictable doubling time. I give you a test tube full of food for bacteria - that’s an analogy with the planet - and I put one bacterial cell in and it is us. It’s going to go into exponential growth and divide every minute. So, at time zero, at the beginning, there is one bacterium. One minute, there are two. Two minutes, four. Three minutes, eight. Four minutes, 16. That’s exponential growth.

    And at 60 minutes, the test tube is completely packed with bacteria, and there’s no food left. When is the test tube only half full? And the answer of course, is at 59 minutes. So, at 58 minutes it’s 25 percent full, 57 minutes, 12 and a half percent full. At 55 minutes of the 60-minute cycle, it’s three percent full. So if at 55 minutes, one of the bacteria looks around and says, ‘Hey guys, I’ve been thinking, we’ve got a population problem.’ The other bacteria would say, ‘Jack, what the hell have you been drinking, man? 97 percent of the test tube is empty, and we’ve been around for 55 minutes!’ And they’d be five minutes away from filling it.

    So the bacteria are no smarter than humans.At 59 minutes they go, ‘Oh my god! Jack was right! What the hell are we going to do, we’ve got one minute left! Well don’t give any money to those economists, but why don’t you give it to those scientists?’ And by God, somehow those bacterial scientists in less than a minute, they invent three tests tubes full of food for bacteria. Now that would be like us discovering three more planet

    Earths that we could start using immediately. So they’re saved, right, they’ve quadrupled the amount of food in space. So what happens? Well, at 60 minutes, the first test tube is full. At 61 minutes, the second is full, and at 62 minutes, all four are full. By quadrupling the amount of food in space, you buy two extra minutes. And how do you add any more air, water, soil or biodiversity to the biosphere? You can’t, it’s fixed! And every scientist I’ve talked to agrees with me. We’re already past the 59th minute."

    -David Suzuki
    Dec 33
    • New / EngTTNT
      OP
      Have to say I love this quote! There is definitely a lot to think about when reading it.

      But bacteria doesn’t know how to create and use tools. If you put a bacteria in one tube and another in a second tube.

      They won’t be able to communicate or learn from one and another. We humans can. Even if the first tube would be at 59 minutes when we first bacteria was put into the second tube - and it got to see the destruction of 60 minutes. It wouldn’t be able to predict and solve its own situation. The second bacteria would end with the same faith.

      We humans wouldn’t.
      Dec 3
    • Facebook Whateverrs
      The second tube is analogous to a second planet. The exponential consumption of resources happens the same with bacteria or humans. These bacteria are personified and have scientists. Being able to communicate doesn't change the fact that they or we are in trouble. These bacteria did communicate and use tools, they argued and then created a whole new world for themselves.
      Dec 3
    • Facebook Whateverrs
      Humans do manage to come up with more efficient ways to use the resources we have, but we use leverage to do that. By burning oil we need less land per person to get our food... But then we start worrying about non-renewable oil instead of renewable food.
      Dec 3
  • Microsoft / EngNotmsft
    What if that “some point the incentive will be high enough” is right now?
    Dec 313
    • New / EngTTNT
      OP
      I am aware. Also what happened in Venice was horrible. There are multiple cities that are in danger right now.

      As humanitarians we must consider everyone. The poor, the few, the unseen. We should do our best to innovate solutions like the flood park in Bangkok.

      I’m not saying that we shouldn’t help or care about affected people - I’m mostly pointing out that we will 100% get to a point when corporations and governments will see this as a big enough threat to call for a race for innovation.

      Much like the Space Race between US and Russia.

      But governments and corporations will not get invested until the climate starts affecting their profits or their political strength.

      But once that happens, the climate issue will not be an issue anymore.

      If anything, I believe that we will be able to control the climate at will. Probably even weaponize it (unfortunately).

      To answer your question, yes, the threat is much more real for some people. But there are always sacrifices before a large initiative is started.
      5d
    • Oath / Engfat
      The space race was very different and in a very different time. The economy was booming and we had the extra resources to fund such program. Why we never went back to the moon? Because it’s terribly expensive. The Congress backed it too.

      We had enough sacrifices. The southern states had seen tremendous damage from natural disasters. Not only we have more of these disasters, we have more to lose now. These disasters wipes away infrastructures that we’ve built over the years and is extremely costly to rebuild them.

      You’re way too optimistic about humanity mastering the environment. This could be the Great Filter that stops intelligent organisms from spreading throughout the universe.
      5d
    • New / EngTTNT
      OP
      I’m rather filled with energy and optimistic for innovation than depressed and anxious.

      Hopefulness ➡️ hopelessness
      5d
    • Oath / Engfat
      I think that’s the same mindset from people that offers thoughts and prayers to mass shooting victims.

      Please channel your optimism into action. Hope is great when it drives action. Hope without action is just delusional fantasy.
      5d
    • New / EngTTNT
      OP
      You are acting as if innovation, science, and technology is non-action initiative 😂

      Get your head out of your ass dude.
      5d
    • Oath / Engfat
      Technology alone is not enough. You think we can win the space race without Congress pouring 100 billion dollars (adjusted for inflation) into the program? You think we can win the space race with a partisan Congress that fights your budget proposals? How is the space race fiscally response use of tax payer money?

      We had a much smaller military budget back then. Why can’t we move the money to combat climate change? #greennewdeal
      5d
    • New / EngTTNT
      OP
      Why are you SO negative and BITTER?

      Obviously technology won’t go anywhere without humans. If I put a nail on the table and come back 1 year later - it’s still just a nail. It’s not going to transform into an advanced self aware robot.

      Obviously... OBVIOUSLY. People have to innovate the technology. Jesus Christ you are so dense 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

      👋🏼 Enjoy your bitter sad life man. I hope happiness gives you a taste one day.
      5d
    • Oath / Engfat
      No, you’re not understanding and I’ll stop being figurative.

      You need to VOTE to put the right person with the right policy in Congress to make progress toward a goal. You need to right political policy to push toward the goal. You need Congress and White House to provide federal funding toward these programs.

      We can start by stopping them from gutting the EPA.
      5d
    • New / EngTTNT
      OP
      Oh, so for some reason you are assuming that I am against voting. Where you got that from - I have no idea.

      Also, the world is much larger than your sinking Congress and White House.

      You are doing so much stupid assumptions on your own end here dude. Just stop.
      5d
    • Oath / Engfat
      I’m not saying that you are against voting. But judging from what you said, you have no problem with voting someone that denies climate change. That becomes the problem.

      Yes, the world is big, but US is the only country not in the Paris agreement.
      5d
  • Apple / Eng
    Momoneyplz

    AppleEng

    PRE
    Amazon
    Momoneyplzmore
    Well we’re already in the middle of a mass extinction. That even with “technology” isn’t repairable. And it’s getting worse.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
    Dec 30
  • Facebook Whateverrs
    Tragedy of the commons. Who's going to pay? If it was a problem that only affected the US and that the US could afford to solve, the US would solve it once we pulled our heads out of our bums. That's not the way this problem works. To fix the entire planet, we may need the entire human race to step up.

    It may be solvable, but if we wait too long it won't be. If sea levels rise 20 feet and Florida falls into the ocean, we're not getting it back. If species disappear, we won't get them back. Corporate solutions would be homes on stilts, or relocation, not lowering the oceans nor lowering the global temperatures.

    The near term (in a historical sense) negative economic impacts are so much larger than what it would cost to stop them from happening with immediate action. Famine, war, disease, mass migrations, loss of biodiversity. There could be so much poverty coming that we may not still have the resources to fix the problem.

    "we were always able to solve our problems before" is also a big part of what's so frightening about it. The complacency. Progress came out of real effort, negotiations, research... not just from companies but also from passionate people and government investments.

    What if governments never banned cfcs and instead just said "eh, whatever, some corporation some day will deal with us not having an ozone layer." it's absurd.

    A small number of humans could make earth entirely uninhabitable with the flip of a switch, and we've had that power for decades. That such a large block of the world population would disregard the importance of our care for this planet is terrifying.
    Dec 30
  • Oath / Engfat
    Corporations never have long term vision. Corporations are ALWAYS focused on short term profit. It’s up to the government to act on long term interests.

    Remember the report that Exxon knows about climate change for decades, but never acted on it?
    Dec 30
  • LinkedIn / Eng
    hitme k

    LinkedInEng

    PRE
    Intel
    hitme kmore
    May be you don't care about the other species and you won't live long enough to understand the gradual effects of climate change.
    Dec 30
  • It’s bound to get out of hand very very soon and the oldies who don’t believe in it will not exist
    Dec 30
  • Apple magikarp16
    Boss! We are fucked. Smell the coffee and get your act together. This is not a negotiable issue anymore. Fucking do anything and everything you can to save the environment.
    And none of the shit is reversible!
    Dec 30
  • Microsoft BarFoo
    And at some point, the daredevil had aced every challenge he’d ever tried, but finally fucked up once, and died.
    Dec 30
  • Does everyone realize that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and is constantly going through warm/cool cycles? For example, new ice age comes approximately every 40K years due to Earth's changing orbit position. Then it warms up again... We are now 10K years into interglacial period. We look at the 100-200 year blip in Earth's history and state things are out of control based on a 100 year sample. Even with all the increased fuel burning, it's still only a 100 year sample. You can't build any reliable models with that. Yet, everybody is convinced.
    Dec 33
    • GE Corum
      Using your logic how can you be certain the earth is only 4.5 billion years old. That has been disputed as well as the big bang theory. If you question those beliefs though, you are considered a nut just because you see there may be other possibilities. The big bang theory is almost laughable because what was there before the so called bang, and how did it get there? A previous implosion?
      Dec 3
    • Right. I don't know for sure. I only know the results of radiometric analysis. And question the size of the sample that is used to convince people we're fucked.
      Dec 3
    • Oath / Engfat
      Forget about the model for a second, giving people a goal to fight for gives hope. Some people that rather want to watch the rest of the world burn is frustrating.
      Dec 3
  • GE Corum
    What if all that happens when you die is you end up getting squeezed out of some screaming woman again a few days later and you just start all over again and you can't remember shit. You want to come back to an almost dead planet?
    Dec 33
    • New / EngTTNT
      OP
      I don’t believe that I would come back to an almost dead planet.

      If you told people 100 years ago that we would be able to grow human organs in labs - they would say that it is impossible.

      Or if you told people about nanotechnology, they would say it’s impossible.

      Or having a robot on Mars that sends pictures back to Earth. They would say it’s impossible.

      Today, people are saying that repairing Earth is impossible. Why would it be? Why can’t we create our own ozone layer? Why wouldn’t we be able to repair the current ozone layer?

      I don’t understand why people have so little faith in technology when it has proven to push through over and over again.

      What I do understand is that people have little faith in greed and other people - but this has been true since history of humanity. Yet, we still come out on top.

      No king will reign forever. At some point humanity might die out. But I doubt that will be because of climate change.
      Dec 3
    • Microsoft BarFoo
      Do you treat live site issues the same way? “Meh. We’ve always handled these issues in the past, so I won’t bother to do anything now... Someone else is sure to fix it later.”
      Dec 3
    • New / EngTTNT
      OP
      I try to solve most things by using tech. That’s why I am in tech...
      7d
  • New jxAa11
    I just can't wait for humans to die out. Have you seen how amazing all of the world we don't inhabit is?
    Dec 32
    • New / EngTTNT
      OP
      Yes, I often travel to remote places. It’s beautiful!
      Dec 3
    • New / IT
      peta

      NewIT

      PRE
      Booz Allen Hamilton
      petamore
      Someone is needed to interpret that beauty!
      7d
  • OpenTable Meliodas
    Yes, some things are irreversible. And other things can be reversed, but not in the lifetime of anyone alive.

    The people most impacted will be the global poor and there is little incentive to fix the climate for them.
    Dec 30

Download the app for more exclusive content.