you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 9 months ago (38 children)

Every generation has had its own set of crises that could “never be overcome”. Being a doomer is letting them win. A better future only happens if we make it happen.

  • source
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [+] 29 points 9 months ago (23 children)
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    No "reverse physics" required.

    One idea among many:

    Restore cannabis.

    It cleans air 7 times more than pine forests.

    It's not just the carbon dioxide that comes into contact with the chlorophyll in the leaves. It's all the terpenes (and other aromatics and pollen) it pumps out too. Meaning it cleans the air high in the sky.

    And atop that, it can replace many polluting technologies. Oil and deforestation (like for farming), for a couple hot examples.

    Even making limecrete housing, instead of offgassing carbon dioxide and causing loads of carbon dioxide during production like concrete does, it's actually carbon negative, in production and throughout its lifetime, sucking up carbon, further hardening over time.

    Similar gains with bioplastics, graphene, paper, fabric, rope, medicine, food, etc.

    It can grow in a greater range of climates than any other useful plant. We could re-green e.g. the entire sahara, the australian outback and the southern half of north america. And it'd increase the soil quality readied for other vegetation within a year or two.

    And that's just one idea.

    Our problem is not physics, it's psycho-socio-economic.

    If the new solid state battery from donutlabs is legit, that could indicate the trickle of cleaner technologies coming, perhaps even towards availing of the emancipatory technologies that have been suppressed for the past century or two. Many an untapped potential. Even just the more mundane better known, like thorium reactors. We have so much headroom without the crooks keeping us down and dirty.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (15 children)

    The same way people fixed the ozone layer, by working together, is totally doable, and we have emerging technologies that would allow us to actively reverse harm, while we have other ones to adapt to the new climate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 9 months ago (14 children)
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (13 children)

    There is carbon capture, but most importantly, there is promising tech to increase atmospheric albedo to reduce temperatures, the problem obviously is that it has to be deployed in a worldwide scale.

    See geoengineering.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 9 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Good thing we can have so much cheap abundant excess energy that at times it's actually a problem for the grid!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    That's why I talk about projects increasing albedo than carbon capture.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    Yes, reverse ecological damage by large scale geoengineering that can have significant serious side effects. I swear, techno utopians are completely fucking delusional.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    You say that, but it really is the only thing we can do without just giving up and saying "fuck you" to future generations. So how about taking your doomerism and fucking off somewhere to be miserable by yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    You can believe in magical fairy tech if you want. In the meanwhile I will continue to advocate for existing technology and societal change, at the risk of sounding like a "doomer".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    At this point it’s already happening one way or another so either you resign yourself to the fact that the world you knew is over and do everything in your power to make something better or you cede the future to those who certainly won’t. I’m not delusional, I know things suck. The planet is irreparably damaged. Wallowing in that fact does nothing, it’s a bridge to nowhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    What if we're in a "fall of the Roman empire" type scenario? Shit does not feel like business as usual.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Agreed. I would say yeah we likely are at one of those historical inflection points. But I think what we do in the interstitial period matters a lot. It’s now apparent that these systems that we were told were immovable can be dismantled rather quickly.

    The hinge point we sit on is whether or not we allow the existing ruling class to consolidate power and create the new world or if working class people take back the power that belongs to them. I think the doomer attitude favors the prior.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    And having kids is the best way to not get a better future.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    I used to think this. Then I remembered everyone will get old and no one will be around to run the economy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    But ... our current economic system is a big part of how things got so bad. Being able to fuck it up is kinda a motivator for not having kids-

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Who do you think suffers most during economic turmoil though? If you want to fuck up the economy in a productive way you need mass action, for which you need a mobilized working class. Reducing the number of workers doesn't help with this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    That is a very different argument from no one being around to run the economy. I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't think that the ratio of workers to owners will change meaningfully before the system is at a breaking point due to missing labour. Not having children also doesn't preclude you from working to induce mass action.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    Ok I just don't see a reasonable way that less children helps to fight the oligarchy. Not having enough nurses to take care of all the dying boomers does what to further the cause? Eliminating labor doesn't work the same way as withholding labor. I can't exactly imagine a childless adult union so what would the plan even be?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    We just need to like… skip a generation, then breed just enough to stay level.

    I don’t think anyone means no one should have children, but man… there’s too many fucking people. And it doesn’t mean killing people, just letting people die naturally while not adding more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -4 points 9 months ago*

    Yeah funny thing is this is basically what we're already doing. China's one child policy and neoliberal austerity everywhere else ensured the current generation of children is smaller than ever. We're running the experiment now, and overall we'd be fine if the countries that have negative growth rates weren't so xenophobic and let immigrants in to replace their ageing workforce.

    Twenty years ago I would have agreed, there's too many people, but now the pendulum is swinging the other way.

  • source
  • parent