Firstly, I want to thank our 264 users who are Patreon supporters for this site. If you are one of the 11,100+ users who call this server your social home, can you consider pitching in to help us? Even a $1 a month donation really helps!
Given the chaos continuing at X, we want to have the resources to grow to manage future waves!
Thanks @tchambers for your work and the friendly reminder!
Upon joining Mastodon I couldn’t think of a better to represent myself than to join IndieWeb.social. Now that I feel like I’m starting to form a habit of using Mastodon and getting value out of it, I’m glad to help out, even if by a tiny amount.
Last month observed highly anomalous temperatures across nearly all of #Antarctica - departures exceeding 5°C above/below the 1981-2010 reference period...
i understand your point, but how do you express variability in a scenario like this, there is some natural variability in meteorological phenomena that should be expressed someway. I read some articles that refer to 3-sigma events, 5-sigma events... i assume that sigma is defined to some time span or something. Maybe the superposition of all curves defines an envolvent that act like a 2-sigma region, just thinking. Big fan of your plots.
The stupid notion that "climate doomers are just as bad as climate deniers" is nicely refuted here by Alan Urban... ______________________
One of the most fascinating things about humans is their endless ability to deny the obvious. Our civilization is clearly headed for collapse, yet most people — even those who know that climate change is real — think the economy can keep growing forever, just so long as it’s a “green economy.”
First of all, there is no such thing as a green economy. To create renewables and electric vehicles, we have to destroy ecosystems so we can mine rare-earth metals. And to produce the plastic, steel, cement, and other components that go into solar panels and wind turbines, we need oil. There’s nothing green about any of this.
Secondly, even if we found an infinite source of clean energy, endless growth would still be impossible. If energy usage were to keep growing at 2.3% per year — as it has for many decades — in 400 years, the oceans would be boiling just from the waste heat.
So
... show more
The stupid notion that "climate doomers are just as bad as climate deniers" is nicely refuted here by Alan Urban... ______________________
One of the most fascinating things about humans is their endless ability to deny the obvious. Our civilization is clearly headed for collapse, yet most people — even those who know that climate change is real — think the economy can keep growing forever, just so long as it’s a “green economy.”
First of all, there is no such thing as a green economy. To create renewables and electric vehicles, we have to destroy ecosystems so we can mine rare-earth metals. And to produce the plastic, steel, cement, and other components that go into solar panels and wind turbines, we need oil. There’s nothing green about any of this.
Secondly, even if we found an infinite source of clean energy, endless growth would still be impossible. If energy usage were to keep growing at 2.3% per year — as it has for many decades — in 400 years, the oceans would be boiling just from the waste heat.
So obviously, infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible, yet most people deny this basic fact. The idea of modern civilization coming to an end is so unthinkable that they simply refuse to believe it.
What I’m trying to tell you is that it’s hopeless. We cannot save modern civilization.
Some people get angry when I say things like that. They accuse me of taking away people’s hope and making them apathetic. And recently, there have been a lot of articles complaining about climate doomers and saying they’re replacing climate deniers.
Imagine a doctor learns that her patient has terminal cancer. She’s about to go tell him the bad news when another doctor stops her and says, “You can’t tell him he’s going to die! If you do, he’ll become apathetic. You should tell him there’s still hope.”
Of course, that would be ridiculous. He needs to know he’s dying so he can warn his loved ones, get his affairs in order, decide how to spend his final days, and figure out how to manage the pain.
In the same way, people need to know that civilization is dying so they can warn one another, get their affairs in order, decide how to spend their final days, and figure out how to minimize the damage.
Imagine the doctor tells him about the cancer, but also assures him that there is still hope. Instead of spending his time with loved ones and making peace with his death, he spends his time searching for miracle cures and wasting money on phony medicine. By doing this, he causes his family more grief and leaves them less money when he’s gone.
This is why doctors don’t give people false hope. It’s cruel and unethical. Telling people we can save civilization is also cruel and unethical.
As long as people believe we can save this civilization, they’ll continue with business-as-usual while looking for solutions that only make the problem worse.
Sure, it’s possible that wind and solar power could extend the life of our civilization by a few years, but that means we’ll do even more damage to the biosphere, making the inevitable collapse that much more painful.
However, if people accept that modern civilization is unsustainable, they’ll start learning how to fix things, how to grow their own food, how to use less energy, or how to repurpose and upcycle garbage.
Meanwhile, governments could start reinforcing infrastructure, insulating homes and buildings, moving people away from the coasts, and incentivizing farmers to switch from monoculture to permaculture farming.
Of course, none of these things would stop the collapse, but instead of being sudden and dramatic, it would would be slower and less painful.
That’s why the idea that climate doomers are just as bad as climate deniers makes me angry. Climate deniers want to go full speed ahead with business-as-usual, which will destroy the biosphere and cause unimaginable suffering. Climate doomers want to stop growing the economy and save as much of the natural world as possible.
Deniers and doomers aren’t the same at all, and to say they are is both ignorant and insulting. ______________________
Yes, most of educated people know it, but they can't see the origin of the problem. Which is trade. Some people already understand this, but not enough to change our society. Talking about problems, and patching does not fix anything. Just a show before extinct. Most of the simple things it us impossible to do because of the need to trade for profit. People, please, look at the origin of the problem.
I found "The world without us" by Alan Weisman (published in 2007) a fascinating read. Wikipedia has a nice informative lemma on the book: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Worl…
@erikwesselius The only problem is, is that we would leave a HUGE mess, especially when it comes to nuclear meltdowns and corroding containers of waste.
I hadn’t thought about the toxic mess as #SeaLevelRise inundates coastal infrastructure. Should make rock fishing a pretty chancy affair, don’t fancy the health outcome of dolphins either.
This is a vitally important truth, but so painful and so overwhelming that I think few people will embrace it. But I'm glad to see this message getting out anyway. The words will be seeded, and the right minds will take heed. Thank you.
and they havent even a loose grasp of history ,theres plenty of civilisations as complex as ours died and in some cases almost vanished without trace ,climate crisis aside people should realise we are reaching the end of the road in the west
If many believe there is truly no decent future, just a painful shitty one of austerity like living in a 3rd world country, many will find no reason to hold back on carbon emissions. They will continue to hold barbecues, get the big truck and fly around the world.
If you want to convince them that the future can be decent if they sacrifice and there will still be minor civilization niceties like cable tv and microwave popcorn then you gotta give them something: hope.
"However, if people accept that modern civilization is unsustainable, they’ll start learning how to fix things, how to grow their own food, how to use less energy, or how to repurpose and upcycle garbage."
Description: Our day-to-day experiences over the past decade have taught us that there must be limits to our tremendous appetite for energy, natural resources, and consumer goods. Even utility and oil companies now promote conservation in the face of demands for dwindling energy reserves. And for years some biologists have warned us of the direct correlation between scarcity and population growth. These scientists see an appalling future riding the tidal wave of a worldwide growth of population and technology.
#Climate folks really need to do more to address the doomers. I run a few large forums on science related topics. The deniers disappeared a long time ago and were replaced by this lot. The worst part is, they're such an untapped resource because they care.
It's literally sponsored by big oil and borrows pages (and marketing firms) from the tobacco lobby.
Harvard researchers have turned a spotlight on the sometimes subtle, yet effective, strategies employed by oil companies to foster doubt and delay action on climate change.
@IanAMartin This article is a turning point in how I think about the climate crisis. Thank you!
The end of modern civilization doesn't have to be impossible to conceive, or inevitable. I want to see it as a natural transition towards a different future.
What if the end of modern civilization was looked at as a positive goal? Let's create a positive vision of how we'll handle it!
Yep, have to agree... except for the use of the term 'civilization'. It will surely be the end of late-stage capitalism and the consumer society / culture now in place... but I wouldn't call that *civilization.*
Hopefully in the future there will be a continuation of knowledge transfer and education and the growth of a new culture of sustainability - a new type of civilization growing from the rotting remains of the old?
In addition, they also have an interesting website which offers Highlights from the book, along with a fascinating Flowchart of choices and a page on Solutions, where they say... ____________________________
It might be too late to stay under 1.5°C of warming, but it’s never too late to care. It’s never too late to act in defense of people and the planet. No matter who you are, there’s so much you can (still) do that matters. ____________________________
a useful response to gaining information is gratitude and curiosity. the described phenomenon of a person responding to the acquisition of information with apathy I would consider to be an illness.
I haven't observed it personally. when I share information it is with people who can use it and want to use it.
Economies only grow when population grows. Can population grow forever if the population just behaves "green"? We already know the answer.
Overpopulation has always been the 800-pound gorilla in the Collapse Room that everyone wants to ignore, simply because there's no easy ethical means to address the problem. Well, guess what? Overpopulation doesn't serve the Common Good, and thus is unethical.
The ecosystem will solve the ethical conundrum if it we don't.
The trouble is the word "doom". I think the more common meaning is "game over". Though some just mean "the current game", not "all games". It's as much an issue of this terminology as anything else.
For a while I've been talking about a 2035 extinction. I find people quibbling about whether it'd be extinction or "merely" civilization collapse. Are these usefully different? If civilization collapses, can we be sure we won't go extinct? If we can't, then in my mind it's pointless to quibble. I've bargained down to just talking about a 2035 civilization collapse (though it seems kinda optimistic these days) because there's less useless conversational friction.
The doomer conversation is, I think, denialists applying a straw man word that is extremely pessimistic and leaves people quibbling over how extreme the pessimism is when really all the people are trying to say is "this is going to get awful fast, please let's hurry up". The point isn't doom at all, it's need for imminent action.
I'm also not buying the notion that it's more humane to declare the patient termi
... show more
The trouble is the word "doom". I think the more common meaning is "game over". Though some just mean "the current game", not "all games". It's as much an issue of this terminology as anything else.
For a while I've been talking about a 2035 extinction. I find people quibbling about whether it'd be extinction or "merely" civilization collapse. Are these usefully different? If civilization collapses, can we be sure we won't go extinct? If we can't, then in my mind it's pointless to quibble. I've bargained down to just talking about a 2035 civilization collapse (though it seems kinda optimistic these days) because there's less useless conversational friction.
The doomer conversation is, I think, denialists applying a straw man word that is extremely pessimistic and leaves people quibbling over how extreme the pessimism is when really all the people are trying to say is "this is going to get awful fast, please let's hurry up". The point isn't doom at all, it's need for imminent action.
I'm also not buying the notion that it's more humane to declare the patient terminal and just let them live out their life in peace. We're talking about potentially the continuation of a species. We owe better than fatalism. Worse than dying out because there was no way to win is going extinct because we thought there was no way to win and we gave up early when we didn't have to. We all need to behave like there's a chance, just in case there is. But that doesn't mean we have to avoid saying there's a big problem.
Maybe instead of "doom", let's insist on some other word like "dire" and "urgent" and "immediate" that makes it harder for someone to claim the aim is inaction. We do need to act, and soon, not just chide people about their tone of voice. Losing civilization over such quibbling would also be bad.
@kentpitman In terms of civilization collapse or human extinction, even if 97.5% of all humanity was wiped out tomorrow, there would still be more people than the entire population of Earth at the time of the Roman, Parthian and Han Empires and Ptolemy Egypt.
And they all had stable societies, good architecture, roads, plumbing, laws, education, agriculture etc so a massive population decline wouldn’t automatically spell the end of all civilization, climate permitting.
@mazzeri With apologies we are now performing a play to illustrate the coversational scenario I meant meant upthread because I really do mean there's a good chance of extinction.
It worries me to need to engage what I consider overly rosy stories of humanity surviving this way, not because I think it would be bad for humanity to survive. I'd love to be wrong on this But it seems likely to me that what's coming is not survivable and I want people to visualize true badness.
I don't want them to do so in order to say there's no hope, but in order to understand that without serious action, the situation you're describing, which is the luckiest of luck, even if we DO act, isn't in scope.
So I often talk of civilization collapse hoping to avoid someone offering an upside, to get them to focus on real badness. But you are, I think, by hinting the worst case isn't complete devastation, feeding people's desire to deny badness. I wish you would not.
If we survive, great, but for now the key thing is to understand that that is FAR from certain. Let's not leave it to chance.
There is an answer though. We just refuse to take it. The doomerism is an issue because it assumes that the loss of the endless economy means the end of humanity, as if we can't exist without profit motive and infinite growth. But capitalism has only existed for about as long as industrialism has. We can exist without it, and have for a very long time.
At first I thought I would comment something like "so you think our civilization is beyond saving?" But I realized that it's the point of whole your toot. Nothing of what you sent would make sense if it wasn't for the principle that it is beyond saving. Now is it truly beyond, I don't know. And I think that's the whole point : can we change? Or better again, do we want to?
Have to respectfully disagree with this one. Of course current civilisation isn't sustainable. But we have to move towards something that is. And even if that's a lost cause, we can reduce the amount of harm done.
Saying there is no hope is exactly the same as saying you might as well take that holiday since the nature you'll see won't be there for much longer.
Worse, it supports disinformation campaigns by the fossil fuel industry against renewables. Yes there is a cost to the transition. Yes there is no perfectly green civilisation on the horizon. However, the faster we act the less the overall damage. And zero fossil fuel use *is* possible, and quickly, even if other forms of harm will take longer to deal with.
Extinction of the human race also means a huge biodiversity loss. We are part of the ecosystem. And extinction remains a possibility depending on the science and our actions.
I care about the wider ecosystem because we're part of it and utterly dependent on it. However I mainly care about people, and that's okay. Managed decline into oblivion is n
... show more
Have to respectfully disagree with this one. Of course current civilisation isn't sustainable. But we have to move towards something that is. And even if that's a lost cause, we can reduce the amount of harm done.
Saying there is no hope is exactly the same as saying you might as well take that holiday since the nature you'll see won't be there for much longer.
Worse, it supports disinformation campaigns by the fossil fuel industry against renewables. Yes there is a cost to the transition. Yes there is no perfectly green civilisation on the horizon. However, the faster we act the less the overall damage. And zero fossil fuel use *is* possible, and quickly, even if other forms of harm will take longer to deal with.
Extinction of the human race also means a huge biodiversity loss. We are part of the ecosystem. And extinction remains a possibility depending on the science and our actions.
I care about the wider ecosystem because we're part of it and utterly dependent on it. However I mainly care about people, and that's okay. Managed decline into oblivion is not acceptable, and if there's even a 1% chance of avoiding it then it's worth fighting for. For your family, your friends, for people. Not just for the earth, which we depend on. Activism has a cost, and being able to be motivated not just by love of non-human life but by love of human life too is important.
Further, there is a primitivist and therefore eugenicist implication to this sort of argument. Collapse will not be equally distributed. The rich think they'll be comfortable for long enough. The disabled, the global poor, will be first out the door. People who depend on modern medicine to survive are marginalised (or worse) by able-bodied survivalists.
And I'm not conflating civilisation with survival here. First, we may need technological civilisation (admittedly different technologies) to survive as a species, in some of the worst case scenarios. Second, pretty much everyone depends on civilisation, and some more than others, especially if they are dependent on modern medicine. More to the point, sufficient food for everyone is necessary. No doubt the rich will continue to eat beef while the poor starve, but there are limits to how far money can insulate you when the whole system is collapsing.
Admitting defeat is demotivating. But above all, it plays into the fossil fuel industry's strategies, particularly attacks on renewables.
Renewables have ecological costs. Many of those costs are the direct consequence of the rest of the economy still being based on fossil fuels, so deploying them quickly reduces the overall cost of the transition. Using less energy is vital, but it's not enough while we are still burning fossil fuels. The harm done by mining for renewables is a fraction of that needed for the equivalent fossil fueled energy. And short term, because of electrification of heat (which radically reduces energy usage), and to a lesser degree of transport (we need more electric *buses*), we will need more electrical energy.
I don't understand why you equate, "Infinite growth is impossible, with, "Our civilization must come to an end." Why can't civilization *change* instead of being hitched permanently to the notion of growth? Why can't we transform our civilization into one that embraces a steady state instead? Or is that just the death of civilization you are referring to, put in different terms?
@ScotHomestead @Lats @SoftwareTheron @DoomsdaysCW @erikwesselius It is absolutely possible that the descendants of humans evolve into something very much like chimpanzees though. If it becomes too expensive to maintain a large body with a large brain, future humans will shrink and become dumber or go extinct, and if maintaining your body temperature with clothing becomes impossible due to reduced intelligence, future humans will get furry again.
Climate doomers' mantra is "we're doomed". "Doom" means "inevitable destruction or ruin", so doomers claim that we as people are headed towards inevitable destruction.
If they believe that, why would they "start learning how to fix things, how to grow their own food, how to use less energy, or how to repurpose and upcycle garbage"?
I've never heard the term "doomer" used to refer to people claiming "modern civilization is doomed". Is this use common?
According to your analogy, we should just party hard, since there's no way to avoid collapse. The next generation is dead already, no sense trying to limit the ruin.
@whknott @ScotHomestead @Lats @SoftwareTheron @DoomsdaysCW @erikwesselius It depends on whether the Earth completely switches to greenhouse mode or not. If that happens, terrestrial vertebrates larger than a few kilogrammes will just vanish, including us.
@DoomsdaysCW @whknott @ScotHomestead @Lats @SoftwareTheron @erikwesselius Anyway, ten million years from now, the biosphere will be back to its normal biodiversity, with new species and entire new ecosystems evolving from the surviving species, just like after every mass extinction.
@LordCaramac @whknott @ScotHomestead @Lats @SoftwareTheron @erikwesselius Or an asteroid will re-seed the Earth. As long as there are the right conditions, life will begin again. If not on Earth, some of the outer planets (especially when the Sun starts to expand). But we still shouldn't squander the beauty and diversity we have now -- we should do everything we can to protect it.
NOTE: Trends and variability in Arctic and Antarctic sea ice are affected by very different atmospheric/oceanic/ice processes and are in opposite seasons! Caution is advised for assessing any stati…
"This one-hectare rooftop oasis has become one of the largest places for animals to touch down, uninterrupted by chemicals and humans, from Monterey Bay all the way to Marin – a distance of about 190 kilometres.
"Though the living roof is small in comparison to other whole-landscape #rewilding projects, the hidden secrets and history of this patch of green hold inspiration and lessons for small-scale rewilding efforts in cities everywhere."
The Global Monitoring Laboratory conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.
Können wir sicher sein dass diese Zahlen stimmen? Die Lufttemperaturen steigen derart rasant an? Möglicherweise haben wir es doch nur mit einem #Messfehler zu tun. <\#Sarkasmus off>.
#Arctic sea ice formation remains very slow across the region from the Beaufort to East Siberian Seas. Its current extent is tied for the lowest on record (with 2012) for this time of year.
Fun Fact: Out of all the vinyl in my collection there are only two albums that I can say I have shaken the hand of the rockstar responsible for them. And it is those two albums.
This year is an extreme (!) year. Actually it was predicted due to El Nino. It is true that in long term view the temperature is rising, but that does not mean 1 year extreme should be so alarming. To my knowledge before ice ages the temperatures also did rise. Also the rise of temperature is not fatal for the planet, but probably for (human) live it is. Humans can slowdown the rise of the temperature by adjusting their behavior.
Like Chomsky keeps saying, this is a threat to *organized human life*. It may not wipe us (all) out, but we're definitely going to regret not doing something about it.
NOTE: Trends and variability in Arctic and Antarctic sea ice are affected by very different atmospheric/oceanic/ice processes and are in opposite seasons! Caution is advised for assessing any stati…
Practically no areas of below average temperatures - anomalies over the last month (left), 3 months (center), and 12 months (right) in the Northern Hemisphere...
Trade-free, as the name suggests, refers to a unique form of exchange where neither party is obligated to give or receive anything in return. The trade-free principle applies to all sorts of exchanges, including goods, services, information, and even relationships. This type of exchange is based on the principle of voluntary contribution and complete freedom in decision-making.
It is different from gifting because in gifting, there might still be implicit expectations of reciprocity or a social obligation. Thus, even gifting is not truly trade-free as there may be an expectation of reciprocation, whereas trade-free transactions have no strings attached at all.
For example, open-source software is a good example of trade-free offering because they are free to use and modify by anyone without any strings attached. The developers do not expect any return from the users, making it a trade-free offering.
Very excited to be implementing rich widgets to display other types of #ActivityPub objects in Bonfire. Here are a few examples showing activities federated from @peertube @pixelfed and @mobilizon. What types should we implement next?
McNeely
in reply to Tim Chambers • • •Tim Chambers
in reply to McNeely • • •Sublime Abiding
in reply to Tim Chambers • • •andi
in reply to Tim Chambers • • •Tim Chambers
in reply to andi • • •valendia
in reply to Tim Chambers • • •Tim Chambers
in reply to valendia • • •valendia
in reply to Tim Chambers • • •John Allsopp
in reply to Tim Chambers • • •Tim Chambers
in reply to John Allsopp • • •Naman
in reply to Tim Chambers • • •Tim Chambers reshared this.
Tim Chambers
in reply to Naman • • •Timo Häkkinen
in reply to Tim Chambers • • •Thanks @tchambers for your work and the friendly reminder!
Upon joining Mastodon I couldn’t think of a better to represent myself than to join IndieWeb.social. Now that I feel like I’m starting to form a habit of using Mastodon and getting value out of it, I’m glad to help out, even if by a tiny amount.
Andi
in reply to Tim Chambers • • •Tim Chambers reshared this.
Tim Chambers
in reply to Andi • • •