Yeah I got that part. I’m just not sure why “Elon didn’t get the memo” when the tweet is on that exact topic. Are you saying he’s not doom and gloom enough?
Technically the latest UN report is targeted to 2040, with estimates of catastrophe commonly ranging from 8-40 years. But it isn’t the “end” it predicts, merely what could be called “the beginning of the end” without change. Things to keep in mind however are that since the 1990’s the comity has published these papers, and they have been consistently wrong by gross margins of over estimation, to the point they stopped calling them predictions and began labeling them projections. They give “low/medium/high” numbers, and report after report for over a decade their “low projections” have been too high. They summarize scientific reports to billet point and leave out any ambiguity or conflicting evidence in the original reports. Independent analysts have gone over the cited material and pointed out the huge departure the summary takes from the direction of the source. A key factor to consider though is that the primary threat to existence in the findings isn’t the effects of climate....
... change but the increasing struggle for resources. A struggle exacerbated by the proliferation of technological access around the world, and reliance on rare earth elements to maintain newer technological infrastructures that rely on environmentally damaging and scarce materials found in things like batteries and solar cells. So really what it says is that we are at greater risk of destruction from war over batteries for electric cars than we are from climate change. Also- modern life forms existed for over 10,000 years at temperatures higher than the projected maximums given. The world would change and we should try to be “greener” but extinction would be highly unlikely.
We wouldn't go extinct, but with the melting of ice caps and the acidification of the ocean, a lot of people are going to lose their lives and livelihoods. Especially since sea life is so prone to temperature changes, its a scenario we best avoid now.
I agree that it’s best avoided, but all it really means is the world would change. To us it would be a catastrophe, but to any one born later it would just be with the world is. They won’t see many pacific islands on their maps. Florida might be an island, and places in coastal areas that used to be “inland” become beach front property. The people who have to live through the mass displacement of billions that rising tides and changing weather could bring- and the aftermath, would suffer greatly. Those born after would just know it as the way the world is, and those who came much before will be dead or dying. That’s also assuming the doomsday predictions of groups who’s last 20 years of doomsday predictions have been wrong, are right this time. So yes- we should do better and live cleaner, but no, one shouldn’t put much stock in these types of reports, and the primary causes of greenhouse gasses aren’t cars or agriculture or even power plants, but the industrial processes used to....
Mine, produce, and ship the increasingly numerous and complex amounts of bullshit being consumed by and ever growing number of people around the world as we tap the emerging markets for bullshit. People making shit people don’t need to keep people employed who market shit you don’t need so that people who manage people who do that can have jobs. We pay people to make shit no one really wants just so we don’t have to pay people to not do anything because we already have enough people with how efficient we are to supply everyone with what they need without having people do anything to get it. It’s all very silly, but to save the world don’t buy a Tesla, buy local, pressure changes to regulate air and interstate commerce, industrial operations, demand those we do business with elsewhere adhere to those standards as well, because 300 tons of Co2 in another corner of the world does as much global damage as 300 tons next door.
****untelated****
But since the bottle was uncorked- and colonize mars to escape ecological destruction or WW3?!! Ha! How’s that work? Mars is more inhospitable than projections of a future climate changes earth. If we have the technology to live on mars, or terraform mars, we would have the technology to live in a post climate change world! And WW3? Another problem caused by people. You don’t think that living on a resource scarce rock with limited habitable space would cause conflict just the same as on earth? What’s different? There’s still only one fragile planet, it’s the same shit. This is the galactic billionaire version of that one kid who is “totally moving to Portland/Austin/NYC, etc. because this place and these people all suck!” It’s the same shit. You avoid Earth WW3 and cause mars WW1. So while we SHOULD go to mars and take care of earth, the sentiments and motivations of fear and doom and gloom are bullshit. Do it because Humanity should be about always doing better.
But since the bottle was uncorked- and colonize mars to escape ecological destruction or WW3?!! Ha! How’s that work? Mars is more inhospitable than projections of a future climate changes earth. If we have the technology to live on mars, or terraform mars, we would have the technology to live in a post climate change world! And WW3? Another problem caused by people. You don’t think that living on a resource scarce rock with limited habitable space would cause conflict just the same as on earth? What’s different? There’s still only one fragile planet, it’s the same shit. This is the galactic billionaire version of that one kid who is “totally moving to Portland/Austin/NYC, etc. because this place and these people all suck!” It’s the same shit. You avoid Earth WW3 and cause mars WW1. So while we SHOULD go to mars and take care of earth, the sentiments and motivations of fear and doom and gloom are bullshit. Do it because Humanity should be about always doing better.