|
|
Post by XilaskaR on Sept 26, 2019 5:36:02 GMT -5
I honestly believe modern politicians are like the fire age gods from Dark Souls. They would rather have a dying world, than a world in which they no longer rule. And because of that, they ignore and try their hardest to pretend no importance of one of the biggest and most obvious problems to exist.
Also why is it controversial to want a clean world now? Why is it such a big political split when a girl stands for the issues entire goverments don't want to even acknowledge? Why are people so inclined to try and find any way possible to deny her arguments? I've gone through entire twitter threads and honestly people just don't want to believe her. That's my theory. Because I've only seen counter arguments like "All kids are dumb so that means what she's saying isn't true" and "It's all a ploy to keep us from worrying about a bigger issue". (Greta Thunberg)
I mean I could respond that there are kids who are literally going to get a PhD in university and that even if there were bigger issues that doesn't mean we should worry about them one at a time but why bother? These people just want to ignore things, they want to live a calm life and not have the responsibility to do anything about the world, so when they hear any argument against climate change they hop onto it without even wondering about the stupid things they're saying.
I can say that what the girl argued for is kind of an exaggeration and while it is a very important issue I think fear mongering everyone is just going to make the problem worse but honestly? I don't care. Politicians don't care about the world, they care about gaining benefit from it. I honestly can't think of any way to make them worry if it isn't with a big scare. I guess a rational debate, but do you really think the guy who didn't care about the amazon forest burning would care about what any scientist has to say?
|
|
94 posts
Discord: octaplex#9865
Clans: Qualia
Creator Points: 0
Favorite Level: Quantum Showdown by Tongii
Hardest Demon: Windings
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000000"}
Mini-Profile Name Color: ffff00
Mini-Profile Text Color: ffe000
|
Post by octaplex on Sept 26, 2019 13:31:46 GMT -5
Does she do anything to actually improve the ecological situation in the world?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2019 15:14:16 GMT -5
Politicians are really frickin stupid that's what I think. They are never going to crack down on the issue. Some have even backed out of doing anything about the issue at all *cough trump*.
I honestly just blame the greedy capitalists and corporations for a lot of the issues with climate though. They aren't going to stop ruining this world because there's only one thing in their mind; MAKE MONEY. They will continue to try and make money regardless of the amount of environmental exploitation that it requires.
There's also this culture in our world about needing unneeded stuff. I always have wondered; why the hell do the boys in my class need 8 pairs of shoes when they aren't going to wear half of them???? I only have 1 pair of shoes and I just wear them every day. There's also plenty of people who buy new phones when theirs aren't even broken just because they want the new phone. Why?? I get new technology when my previous stuff breaks or if I really need something.
|
|
1,170 posts
Discord: yicar
Favorite Level: Diffuse
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"71e3df"}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 000000
Mini-Profile Text Color: 000000
|
Post by Luxi on Sept 26, 2019 18:11:48 GMT -5
Does she do anything to actually improve the ecological situation in the world? To paraphrase the youtuber/streamer Vaush She's an advocate. Her job is to get people, especially young people, involved. Obviously the people who already know about what she advocates probably won't listen to her because they want to hear from scientists or other sources that can provide us with new information, but her role in society is still important nonetheless. (Not paraphrasing anymore) If you watch her interviews with Trevor Noah you can actually see she does make an effort to improve the ecological situation in the world. She does not support industries that raise CO2 emissions, going so far as to take a boat across the Atlantic as opposed to flying, just to speak in front of the UN. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2019 21:26:03 GMT -5
don't get me wrong climate change is a big issue, but for the most part the message is always to the wrong fucking people. i see too many things about it on social media or the news, but the trouble with that is that is applying to people who do less than 1% of the total global warming, the big issue is with giant industries and companies that choose to use fuels and materials which harm the planet, therefore why are we telling the public and giving the message to them instead of the leaders of industries? sure the message to the public doesn't harm anyone but it doesn't prevent global warming at all or if it does the change is so minuscule that it doesn't matter hence why people are praising Greta Thunberg for her speeches on it since she actually does direct the message at the start of her speech at rich people but then she fucking says "we're not asking world leaders" which is literally the suicide of her movement since the people cannot do anything to change global warming or do a big impact without having laws or forcing change upon companies (then she talks about the future tactic which never works).
overall idc personally, but it bothers me when someone asks me about what im doing for climate change and i respond with "nothing because im not even 0.01% of the problem" and then i get shunned for it despite that; then again im not the most civil person when debating, i prefer a straight up "fuck off" lmao
|
|
|
|
Post by Ezel on Sept 27, 2019 9:33:24 GMT -5
One word: money.
If you need a better explanation, I just think that a lot of people don't really care about the planet's condition if they won't live before stuff gets really bad, or just it isn't worth for them because they have to spend a ridiculous amount of money to actually change stuff which cause a lot of the problem, such as energy sources that cause a lot of pollution.
For example I'm pretty sure Trump is aware of climate change, and I doubt he'd be so stubborn to pretend that it isn't true, however I feel like he most likely doesn't want to care what's going on with it, because that'd require a lot of changes and effort. Why would you do that when you can spend time on something less important, and even if you get sick from the pollution, you have enough money to actually give yourself medical treatment. Companies abuse and exploit certain values all the time, and if they're getting a lot money, they just won't care if there's enough profit.
In my country pollution is a huge problem in Europe, and that's because the government here doesn't really care about what will happen to people who have to live in big, smoggy cities. It all costs money, so why the hell would they care to fix that if it's not affecting them in any bad way? It's just pathetic, especially that big cities really struggle with this issue, because there's more people, companies, etc.
Also the argument that Lockstep mentioned is kinda flawed as well. Yeah, corporations are a big percentage of the problem, but any change is always good. It's a bad way to think that if you're just a small percentage of the problem, it doesn't really matter. What if we'd find thousands of people saying the same? See the problem? The percentage would just rise further and further. I think both big companies and just regular people should watch out about what they're using, what kind of power source is used and what stuff you'd should avoid (for example, don't burn trash, I had to mock my family members for doing that because not they were just polluting themselves, but also other people with it. Thankfully they do that much less now).
|
|
|
|
Post by Atlantist on Sept 27, 2019 18:30:57 GMT -5
change da world
my final message. Goodb ye
|
|
|
|
Post by gdphoenix888 on Sept 28, 2019 22:23:06 GMT -5
change da world my final message. Goodb ye i absolutely hate how i get this |
|
|
|
Post by AquaHeart on Sept 30, 2019 8:36:25 GMT -5
They would rather have a dying world, than a world in which they no longer rule.
And I 5,000% agree with basically everything you said. Climate denialists and the powerful figures they support will be the death of this world. I can't wait to see their faces and the logical defenses they'll attempt to put up against "the crazy, corrupt leftists", when it's, you know, too late.
This might seem like a hot take to some, but honestly, personal stance on climate change to me is not a "liberal" or "conservative" thing. It's more of a "right" or "wrong" thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by orecreeper on Oct 5, 2019 14:52:22 GMT -5
Climate change is kind of a complicated topic, as in it's not "black" or "white". It's not completely about whether or not climate change "exists", but rather "what can we do about it, if anything". If history has proven anything, it's that climate change comes and goes naturally. Take the ice age for example. If the ice age were to happen again right now, there would be little that anyone can do about it except adjust accordingly. My point is, one can't just assume the cause of something without proper proof and reason. You don't just declare a person guilty of a crime because they look like they did it, or because some random guy you found says so. There needs to be proper evidence, same as here. The first thing to do about climate change, in my opinion, is not "hey lets change something", rather it should be "what should we change, if anything, and why?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Atlantist on Oct 6, 2019 5:11:45 GMT -5
The first thing to do about climate change, in my opinion, is not "hey lets change something", rather it should be "what should we change, if anything, and why?" "what should we change, if anything, and why?"
"lets decrease fossil fuel consumption, because that produces CO2, and CO2 amplifies the greenhouse effect."
Note that the above statement is a "hey lets change something" statement. We've already answered who, what, when, why and how should we change. It's not a question of whether we should change; in fact it's not a question at all. We either choose to change or we don't.
You seem to be encouraging people to "adjust accordingly" to a new environment, instead of trying to change it. You also seem to think that climate change is not caused by humans, judging from "one can't just assume the cause of something without proper proof and reason. (...) There needs to be proper evidence, same as here." Your whole argument is summed up into your final line, "what should we change, if anything, and why?", which implies that we have no reason to change anything. If you think climate change is fabricated, just say it.
|
|
|
|
Post by orecreeper on Oct 6, 2019 20:57:33 GMT -5
The first thing to do about climate change, in my opinion, is not "hey lets change something", rather it should be "what should we change, if anything, and why?" "what should we change, if anything, and why?"
"lets decrease fossil fuel consumption, because that produces CO2, and CO2 amplifies the greenhouse effect."
Note that the above statement is a "hey lets change something" statement. We've already answered who, what, when, why and how should we change. It's not a question of whether we should change; in fact it's not a question at all. We either choose to change or we don't.
You seem to be encouraging people to "adjust accordingly" to a new environment, instead of trying to change it. You also seem to think that climate change is not caused by humans, judging from "one can't just assume the cause of something without proper proof and reason. (...) There needs to be proper evidence, same as here." Your whole argument is summed up into your final line, "what should we change, if anything, and why?", which implies that we have no reason to change anything. If you think climate change is fabricated, just say it.
My man, you got it all wrong. I don't imply that climate change is not real, I stated that I think it does exist, but what I'm considering is, do we really know all of the causes. Change is worthless if it isn't in the right direction, and it can't be "hey, let's try stuff to see if it works" either, we need more than just some hypothesis that hasn't even been properly tested yet. Just because something seems to make sense doesn't mean it actually is what is going on. Climate change could be caused by humans, or it could not, or something other than fossil fuels could be causing it and it just completely went over everyone's heads. And we haven't even come close to solving the "how" yet. It's not as easy as "yeah lets just stop using fossil fuels", before even considering "what the fuck are we gonna replace it with". Because honestly there is no way that we humans can live now without technology because we've become so adapted to it, and technology requires energy, and something needs to fill in the role of "energy provider". And the so called "clean energy sources" right now are all filled with flaws. I did forget to include the how question in my original response though, so sorry for that. But how and what are the questions we should be answering, not if. And I would like to add that you seem to have this "do or do not" take on things, which half the time doesn't work, because there are factors that have to be considered. |
|
|
|
Post by Atlantist on Oct 8, 2019 23:09:33 GMT -5
Climate change could be caused by humans, or it could not, Carbon-14 has a half-life of about 6000 years. Fossil fuels, being way older than 6000 years, have pretty much no carbon-14 in them. And wouldn't you know it, atmospheric carbon-14 is becoming way less common, because a certain species of monkey likes to spin their wheels really quickly.
Not only that, but satellite imagery show constant carbon dioxide hotspots around the east coast of China, central India, the Amazon, and pretty much everywhere else you'd expect a man-made CO2 hotspot to be. Also central Africa, for some reason. Maybe something other than heat could be causing water to boil and it just completely went over everyone's heads. yes i KNOW about pressure shut UP
There is a tiny chance that there's some global-scale natural phenomenon that every single climate scientist in existence has all coincidentally missed, but I wouldn't sweat it. It's statistically negligible.
"If" is not a question. I quote you, "what should we change, if anything, and why?" When did it switch from why to how?
Ignoring the inconsistency, I agree with this part, to a degree. We already know what we have to do (cut down CO2 emissions), and we've pretty much figured out the how. Reducing energy consumption is a first; things like bussing, biking, walking, eating less meat, avoiding palm oil, turning the lights off, using a reusable cup, buying locally, and generally buying less are all non-disruptive (I'd like to stress that; non-disruptive) things that can, over time, save a lot of CO2, and you can do these things as much or as little as you want. We are not asking for none, we are asking for less.
And as for when we do have to use energy? Clean energy sources are not, as you say, "filled with flaws"; we can easily make renewable energy sources work alongside fossil fuels. The only problem they have is that it costs money to install them (and you have to install a lot of them), meanwhile fossil fuel plants are already installed, and people prefer to let all of their money trickle away than to spend half of it to patch the hole. And even the price problem is constantly being worked on, with cheaper and more efficient renewables coming out every day.
Climate change is caused by humans, and we can change it. Governments don't have enough money to suddenly go green, but a hybrid energy system, to any ratio, is doable right now, and can be worked on over time. We, as consumers, can use less energy, and can give less money to those who don't. Fossil fuels are not a necessity.
My only "do or do not" statement was "We either choose to change or we don't." It's like digging a hole; there's no such thing as half a hole, there's no such thing as half a change. The real question is how big the hole should be. |
|
