• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

A sobering read. Time is running out regarding climate change.

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,515
3,281
126
For 20 years I have said on this forum and the one before it that humanity would rather die than awaken to it's self hate.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,402
3,939
126
I saw this posted on the wapo article. Its pretty eye popping and makes me realize we have doomed ourselves. We probably wouldnt of had this extreme level of correction needed had we done something in the 80's when they figured out what was happening.

The comments here show a sad lack of understanding of the scale of the challenge to ever get the scale of reductions talked about in this article. For one, it will be impossible if the per person greenhouse gas emissions of India ever rise to the per person level of Namibia (far, far less than the US, obviously), unless the per person levels of China drop by half and of the US drop by 80 percent. Perhaps WaPo could write an article discussing what the implications of a per person emissions level of 50 percent (forgot about 80 percent - that will never even be discussed, let alone achieved in this century) would be in the US.

No one person permitted to occupy more than 4000 cubic feet (500 sq ft with 8 foot ceilings). All McMansions become multi family homes. No AC below 85 deg, no heat above 62 deg. No privately owned vehicles below 75 mpg, with a 5000 miles/yr limit, one air flight every 2 yrs limit, 2 high efficiency light bulbs per person in homes. Etc.
 

FIVR

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2016
3,753
906
106
I saw this posted on the wapo article. Its pretty eye popping and makes me realize we have doomed ourselves. We probably wouldnt of had this extreme level of correction needed had we done something in the 80's when they figured out what was happening.
There is ZERO chance any of that gets done.

This is why having children at this time in history is actually the cruelest and most selfish thing anybody can ever do. You are condemning human beings to a lifetime of war, scarcity, and unrest just so you can have another "little you" to brag about for a few years before you die. On top of that, this "little you" is going to make things so much worse for everyone else.


I'm just glad that I was born 30 years ago instead of today. At least I got to see parts of the planet that were (more or less) still in decent shape before everything went to shit.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,515
3,281
126
I thought 'self hate' had a deeper, psychological meaning.
I was pointing out that it is our refusal to know what we feel is why, when I say that refusal is so deep we prefer to ignore the fact of that our self hate is causing our extinction, it sounds nuts to you and you call me nuts for suggesting it. You, like the rest of the word, are in a state of denial and the reason is that in order to create self hate you have to cause terrible pain, pain we are terrified of remembering. Nobody is to blame. We had to shut down to survive as children, but it is deeply sad our species may die from this. We hate ourselves because we were forced to believe we were the cause of our parents and guardians misery just as you now blame me. I’m OK with you doing that.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,399
1,510
126
I didn't think I'd be around to see the end of the world but hey I guess maybe I will.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,402
3,939
126
I didn't think I'd be around to see the end of the world but hey I guess maybe I will.
Thats the largest driving factor in why we are where we are. Nobody wanted to make any sacrifices because they werent going to be alive. As I said we evolved wrong. We lost. oh well.
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,095
992
136

Denly

Golden Member
May 14, 2011
1,143
109
106
Spyder are right on over population and save the forest, unfortunately forest can not be saved as population continuous to grow. Nothing can be done on over population unless we go for the purge movie lvl event, so what's next? We give up and let the shit hit the fan or we fight till the end? If the heroism in you want to fight you all know what to do.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,204
126
Basically every study done on the subject has concluded it is cheaper to address climate change than to just deal with the fallout. This was confirmed again this year in a study published in Nature linked below (first link - original peer reviewed study, subscription required, second link - summary of study, no subscription required).

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0071-9
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05219-5

"Cheaper". While you are right I'll say again that financial costs are nothing compared to what is at risk.

From the Bible-

"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs".

Change faith to wisdom and we arrive at the same point.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,402
3,939
126
"Cheaper". While you are right I'll say again that financial costs are nothing compared to what is at risk.

From the Bible-

"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs".

Change faith to wisdom and we arrive at the same point.
But it’s not cheaper for the individual. I listened to an interview of a farmer in Brazil and he basically said if you want to save the rain forest come pay for it.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,204
126
But it’s not cheaper for the individual. I listened to an interview of a farmer in Brazil and he basically said if you want to save the rain forest come pay for it.
The idea is to make technology be more appealing. Let me clarifying something. When I say economics are irrelevant I mean from supply and demand the free market, whatever. I don't care if they find Santa's Elves and determine they're communists. If people want to get more stuff easier then stop cutting down the rainforests. Remember we always have some very nasty and unacceptable solutions if needed, sort of a "This is a nice village you have here. It would be a shame if there was a plague or summink like that".
 

Stokely

Senior member
Jun 5, 2017
796
611
106
"Fighting to the end" is doing what you personally can, but also voting in a government that is willing to take large steps to tackle the issue. Or maybe first elect a government that first doesn't try to suppress research within it's very own Environmental Protection Agency. Very few people on the right are even willing to have an honest discussion about the issue, or admit there may even be an issue. And they are in charge.

And...the first government that tries to demand sacrifice from people (through taxes and restrictions) will just have it used against them in campaign ads and they'll be voted out asap, or impeached.

Don't forget the religious factor (which again, is huge with GOP supporters). When I stated to an elderly relative some of the science and findings on this subject, their fallback was: "Well, the Bible talks about how the world ends. That's factual too". In other words, it's all preordained in your book of myths so we don't need to actually take action in this world. Keep on burning fossil fuels like it's 1999, let the party never end...cause nothing we do matters anyway. Fucking evil, that attitude.

So, back to either hoping the scientists are wrong and/or that some tech solution appears in the future. Sounds like such a "conservative" way to live.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Feld

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,402
3,939
126
The idea is to make technology be more appealing. Let me clarifying something. When I say economics are irrelevant I mean from supply and demand the free market, whatever. I don't care if they find Santa's Elves and determine they're communists. If people want to get more stuff easier then stop cutting down the rainforests. Remember we always have some very nasty and unacceptable solutions if needed, sort of a "This is a nice village you have here. It would be a shame if there was a plague or summink like that".
by the time we waged war over the environment it will be too late.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,402
3,939
126
"Fighting to the end" is doing what you personally can, but also voting in a government that is willing to take large steps to tackle the issue. Or maybe first elect a government that first doesn't try to suppress research within it's very own Environmental Protection Agency. Very few people on the right are even willing to have an honest discussion about the issue, or admit there may even be an issue. And they are in charge.

And...the first government that tries to demand sacrifice from people (through taxes and restrictions) will just have it used against them in campaign ads and they'll be voted out asap, or impeached.

Don't forget the religious factor (which again, is huge with GOP supporters). When I stated to an elderly relative some of the science and findings on this subject, their fallback was: "Well, the Bible talks about how the world ends. That's factual too". In other words, it's all preordained in your book of myths so we don't need to actually take action in this world. Keep on burning fossil fuels like it's 1999, let the party never end...cause nothing we do matters anyway. Fucking evil, that attitude.

So, back to either hoping the scientists are wrong and/or that some tech solution appears in the future. Sounds like such a "conservative" way to live.
Thats not the reality we live in. The economy is baked to be this way and to change it would require an amazing amount of pain. The world will end for us in the next 500 years or so. Old white men ruined us.
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,095
992
136
But it’s not cheaper for the individual. I listened to an interview of a farmer in Brazil and he basically said if you want to save the rain forest come pay for it.
Yes, this is true, only cheaper for society in the long run. It is certainly cheaper for us to postpone the problem if we ignore future costs. Similar to how its cheaper today to not buy a fire extinguisher because nothing is on fire today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Feld

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,402
3,939
126
I dont blame that farmer though. Like America uses the most energy of anyone and we expect all these other places to just live in poverty. We will never lead by example.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
15,306
3,511
136
There is ZERO chance any of that gets done.

This is why having children at this time in history is actually the cruelest and most selfish thing anybody can ever do. You are condemning human beings to a lifetime of war, scarcity, and unrest just so you can have another "little you" to brag about for a few years before you die. On top of that, this "little you" is going to make things so much worse for everyone else.


I'm just glad that I was born 30 years ago instead of today. At least I got to see parts of the planet that were (more or less) still in decent shape before everything went to shit.
At least my kids are smart enough not to make me a grandfather.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Feld

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
35,199
8,526
136


It will be impossible to rationally argue that we don't deserve what is to come.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY