125 points

Our collective response to climate change

permalink
report
reply
32 points

That’s right. We theorized the effects shortly after the first coal power plant, and we have observed the effects for a century now. Yet the response has been minimal, to say the least

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

I’m sure we’ve seen nothing yet

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

As far as effort? You’re right

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

And damage!

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

large efforts are being made, its just not up to par with what people are expecting from their governments

permalink
report
parent
reply
91 points
*

Fostering societal systems of greed and competition rather than of cooperation and compassion.

permalink
report
reply
6 points
*

The problem with cooperation and compassion is that it literally takes one dick to ruin it. If we could incentivize the psychopaths in society to collaborate for their own good, then at least we’d strike a nice balance, but our economies aren’t structured that way.

A system that can be so easily destabilized is not a system that has planned for the long term. I think we’re slowly getting there, as even the dicks in society are beginning to realise that they can be shunned for their public actions, and that shunning does come with real financial consequences.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I just can’t subscribe to that idea. If it took 1 dick to ruin everything society would never have gotten off the ground in the first place. Hell, even today, our power grid pretty much operates off the principle of 'don’t be a dick and shoot this with the guns we all have" and it took MAGA craziness for people to attack them. I’d say compassion operates within any given system in spite of people being dicks and thats why we have prevailed the way we have.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

You make a good point

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

This, we moved from Tribes to towns to cities to be more efficient but lost the cooperative aspect of the tribe which made it more efficient in the first place. Now corporations do market research until they figure out exactly what we can afford to get our needs met and then charge that price instead of anything related to their actual costs. It’s resulted in a situation to where most people live month to month and can’t afford vacation or even an unexpected car repair.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Thats me. My car, teeth, hair, and some parts of my rental house (thanks landlord) are falling apart and I can’t afford to fix any of it cause rent and bills are due each month and they keep going up. Its fucken madness, its making me insane.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Cheers from across the hellscape, friend.

permalink
report
parent
reply
52 points
  1. We mine and manufacture nutrient dense fertilizer at massive environmental cost.
  2. We use the nutrients to grow plants
  3. We eat the nutrients in our food
  4. We expel 95% of these nutrients in our waste
  5. We dump our waste into the rivers and oceans with all the nutrients (often we purposefully destroy the nitrogen in the waste since it causes so much damage to rivers and oceans)
  6. We need new nutrients to grow plants

Before humans there was a nutrient cycle. Now it’s just a pipe from mining to the ocean that passes through us. The ecological cost of this is immeasurable, but we don’t notice because fertilizer helps us feed starving people and waste management is important to avoid disease.

We need to close the loop again!

permalink
report
reply
9 points

Are you saying we need to start mining the rivers and oceans for nutrients? Or poop directly on the crops?

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Poop indirectly on crops. Systems like this or the Aztec chinampa system, basically try to keep nutrients in the loop with fish and other aquatic organisms. Obviously, there’s a disease risk if you do it wrong, but that’s also true for modern water treatment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

You can sterilize waste pretty easily, we do it all the time, and you should before reclaiming not-water for reuse. Otherwise you’re gonna end up with epidemics like it’s the 1700s.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Like evasive chimpanzee said we need to poop INDIRECTLY in crops. Hot aerobic composting for example has excellent nutrient retention rates and eliminates nearly all human borne diseases. The main problem would be medication since some types tend to survive.

Also urine contains almost all of the water soluble nutrients that we expel and is sanitised with 6-12 months of anaerobic storage. So that’s potentially an easier solution if we can seclude the waste stream. Again the main issue would be medications.

I don’t have the answer, if it was easy we would have done it already. The main issue is we don’t have a lot of people working on the answer because we’re still in the stage of getting everyone in the world access to sanitation. Certainly the way we’re doing it is very energy and resources intensive, unsustainable in the living term, and incredibly damaging to the environment. We’ve broken a fundamental aspect of the nutrient cycle and we’re paying dearly for it.

The other problem is, like recycling, there isn’t a lot of money in the solution, so it’s hard to move forward in a capitalist system until shit really hits the fan.

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

Having the intelligence to create technology but not enough intelligence to understand the implications.

permalink
report
reply
3 points

we understand the implications, we just assume that the negatives will happen to others and that the positives will grant us a temporary reprieve in which to plug existing holes

permalink
report
parent
reply

The thing is technology is neutral. How we use it isnt.

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points
*

letting unqualified businessmen rule the planet instead of experts in their given fields.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

For me, this post is right under the person who said “Agriculture” and the response “Because it lead directly to feudalism and other forms of autocracy?”

And if unqualified businessmen ruling instead of experts in their “given fields” isn’t a perfect way to describe feudalism, I don’t know if irony has survived.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Asklemmy

!asklemmy@lemmy.ml

Create post

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it’s welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Icon by @Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de

Community stats

  • 9.7K

    Monthly active users

  • 4.9K

    Posts

  • 275K

    Comments