| ▲ | meander_water 2 hours ago |
| > The most prophetic movie of all time I think we need to collectively get our heads out of our asses. The world is literally flying headfirst into an unimaginable crisis (food and water shortages, loss of inhabitable land, massive inequality, power shortages) via human induced climate change. We won't have the luxury of having enough power to even keep an AI alive for more than 5 minutes. People need to get a grip and deal with real problems. |
|
| ▲ | Recurecur 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Perhaps some of us collectively need to do that...for pretty much the opposite reasons you claim. The crises you mention are way down the road, if they occur at all. If warming does become problematic, we'll have to geoengineer our way out of it, as according to the alarmists we've already passed a critical level of CO2 concentration. There's no end in sight to further CO2 emission, either. The good news is that the global warming alarmism is likely overblown, and even if not geoengineering and other mitigations will provide a workable solution. The one crisis that will absolutely not occur due to "climate change" is "power shortages". Fission power is effectively unlimited, and so is fusion power once it comes online. Solar is also there for the long haul, though its land usage is prohibitive compared to nuclear sources. (Wind power is a waste of money, time, and materials, but that's another topic.) The only viable way forward is to advance science and engineering to the point that addressing global warming as needed is feasible - which will also provide myriads of other benefits. The future is bright, and will be multiplanetary soon enough! |
| |
| ▲ | Quartzium an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Room temperature superconductors could solve a lot of issues for the whole planet. Run lines to all countries from a few solar farms spread around the globe and you have constant power delivered everywhere with no losses, at all times. Sun shines somewhere at any point, and the surface we'd need to ensure most if not all our energy needs is quite irrelevant, all things considered. Have them float in the ocean and installed in some remote places on land where the case, really no issue. Just a few tech advances can massively change things. The real problems are of different nature, who benefits from it? The entities who sell energy to the whole world won't just give it up for the benefit of humankind. It doesn't really work like that in the real world. Hell, there's a whole history of sabotaging energy sources, just so some countries depend on these entities for energy. As long as humans are in control, there will be a lot of nonsense like this. It's not a problem that we cannot really solve it, it's rather...are we really allowed to solve it? | |
| ▲ | meander_water an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This line of thinking is dangerous for two reasons: - Despite everything we've done, climate change is still reversible. Thinking that all is lost drives us to inaction. - The solutions we need are largely political, not technological. Our leaders have everything they need to implement the policies needed to solve this. I urge you to read the latest UN Emissions Gap report (https://wedocs.unep.org/items/87c02cac-8da8-4c28-ba61-c846ee...) > The opportunity to limit
warming to 1.5°C without overshoot has been lost, but the
future remains crucially dependent on decisions taken
today. Countries can still limit peak warming, shorten
the duration of overshoot and keep the goals of the Paris
Agreement within reach. Doing so requires faster, deeper
and sustained emission reductions starting immediately, as
well as large-scale removals of carbon dioxide (CO2) from
the atmosphere. | |
| ▲ | triceratops an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Solar is also there for the long haul, though its land usage is prohibitive compared to nuclear sources. Even just the land used to grow corn for ethanol in the US is enough to power the entire country with solar power. [1] In no sense is solar's land footprint "prohibitive", other than maybe for micro-states. > (Wind power is a waste of money, time, and materials, but that's another topic.) The World Nuclear Association, a group that promotes nuclear power, admits that wind power is cheaper than nuclear. "Nuclear energy averaged 0.4 euro ¢/kWh, much the same as hydro; coal was over 4.0 ¢/kWh (4.1-7.3), gas ranged 1.3-2.3 ¢/kWh and only wind showed up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 ¢/kWh average. "[2] Your current sources of information are lying to you. Drop them. 1. https://youtu.be/KtQ9nt2ZeGM?t=1835 2. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec... |
|
|
| ▲ | foxglacier 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Don't you ever wonder why you can't quantify those predictions and what they would look like if you did? They're all things that already occur and have always occurred to some extent, what's the difference? |
| |
|
| ▲ | thrwfjauci2aa an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
