this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
545 points (96.1% liked)

World News

32297 readers
633 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Researchers have predicted the collapse of the AMOC could happen any time between 2025 and 2095 — far sooner than previous predictions, although not all scientists are convinced.

=====

What if...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Saneless@lemmy.world 61 points 1 year ago (6 children)

And they know how to fucking fix it but don't want to

It'd be like if in the movie Armageddon the government just said "Eh let's see if it really will be that bad if it hits us"

[–] 1bluepixel@lemmy.world 53 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 18 points 1 year ago

That movie felt way too real watching it.

[–] Saneless@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes but without the part where they tried

[–] HurlingDurling@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We haven't gotten to that point yet

[–] arefx@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Without some sort of violent revolution, we won't, or time runs out but it's not a movie and there's no ship to another planet.

[–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Great. That's exactly what we need now - more violence

[–] Saneless@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Revolutions take over where reason stops. The people in power have the means to do the right thing, but sometimes they look out for a few people and will destroy thousands. That's not a good option, as people get more desperate

[–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Climate change is not something that has a simple solution to it and governments just refuse to do so for whatever reason. That's a naive view that ignores all the complexity of this issue.

For example: stopping all carbon emissions is not going to stop climate change. Not only do you need to become carbon-neutral but you also need to get all the excessive carbon out of the atmosphere. How?

[–] Saneless@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Why the extreme? Cutting back and investing in things that are better should be a mandate, not an idea or option. And certainly we cannot allow an administration to roll things backwards just because someone ~~bribed them~~ donated to their campaign

[–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If there's ever a time when it's justified, it's when our very existence is at stake.

[–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Climate change is not an existential threat to humanity

[–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago

To humanity? Probably not. To billions of people? Definitely yes.

[–] electromage@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

This is because you're not sorting your recycling!

[–] Dubious_Fart@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"We could do something about the asteroid, but think of the harm doing something could do to the shareholders!?"

[–] Saneless@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I was going to save humanity but I have a responsibility to a handful of shareholders that yell at me in meetings so... You can really see how hard this is for me

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

It's actually kind of too late now.

But, we may be able to prevent more bad stuff happening if we change things today!

[–] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

IDK, I mean we know it's to do with carbon but we don't really know how to stop producing that in a timely manner.

[–] TwistedTurtle@monero.town 7 points 1 year ago

Yes we do. Carbon tax.