• @Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    01 month ago

    I’m sorry, but you’re deluding yourself if you don’t think that the gurrent system won’t collapse under climate change if we don’t have fundamental changes.

    • @InverseParallax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 month ago

      Meh, I think we can adjust.

      I think most other systems would be worse, and the system itself is entirely irrelevant.

      The only thing that will save us is science, climate change probably doesn’t work the way you think it does, it’s complex and we have room to work if the assholes get off our backs.

        • @InverseParallax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 month ago

          We went from learning from books to having access to the entire sum knowledge of humanity in my pocket instantly in my lifetime.

          Science is truly powerful, and I can say that because I’m literally arguing with you over it.

          Geoengineering is basic science, the only thing blocking us from doing it are all the morons who don’t understand how it works and believe “ONLY GAWD” is in charge of the weather, and the other group of morons who don’t understand how it works and thing we should all run back to live in caves.

          Read Malthus, we should never have made it this far.

            • @InverseParallax@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              01 month ago

              You have no idea about complex systems, climate and chaos theory. Geo-engineering is siake oil the destructive status quo is trying to sell us while the rich build post-apocalyptic bunkers on New Zealand.

              Yes, it’s complicated, you know what else is a complex system? The human body. Better not ever take any medicine or anything really.

              We predicted climate change, we can use the same techniques to stop it.

              I like how geo-engineering is snake oil, while instead losing 3/4 of the population and having the rest live like cavemen is somehow the rational and safe choice.

              We can’t sustain the current population on the planet, so either we figure out how to fix that problem, or we get rid of a lot of population, you’re welcome to volunteer.

                • @InverseParallax@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 month ago

                  You clearly do not understand what eugenics is, and I was literally arguing against that, as that is the only logical conclusion to keep the planet at its natural human carrying capacity.

                  Have you not thought through the consequences of your beliefs? Do you not realize reducing human industry and agriculture to “sustainable levels” means dramatically reducing human population because we cannot remotely sustain what we have now?

                  Do you know where the fertilizer used to make the majority of our food from otherwise marginally arable land comes from?

                  • @Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    0
                    edit-2
                    1 month ago

                    Don’t you high-horse me. You’re arguing in fa-our of a system that’s literally grouing and growing and growing. Further destroying the biosphere and therefore destroying the foundation of what we need to survive. You don’t destroy the biosphere for so-called “progress” that’s sells us fake-solution (electric vehicles that are unsupportable at the scale they’re marketed after fake solution (AI, that’s driving up the energy requirements needed for the transition to a more sustainable power grid) only to deepen the titanian rift between the poor and the filthy rich.

                    You’re the worst kind of eugenicist. The one who claims they have moral high-ground. “We never should have come that far”