nah it's natural
-
Shh, we don't want to talk about that, car is comfy
On a more serious level, the type of AI that all the energy is being used for, generative AI, is not particularly necessary. Transportation often is. There are types of AI that are ridiculously useful, like the one that does protein folding, or a lot of machine learning algos that classify things for X or Y business reason... But LLMs and image generation are a fucking novelty.
Do you think these are just different technologies that happened to have been developed simultaneously? These are all from the same spark. Neural networks giving rise to emergent unexplainable phenomenon when prodded in very very specific ways. Ai research is almost all trying to understand how the fuck that happens and why it can do all these things.
Radiology is a good use case. Ai porn maybe not so much.
But as god help me. You are saying that cruising in a several ton metal missiles, often alone, back and fourth over the planet or to McDonalds is necessary! No transportation isn't often necessary! Americans often say this but DUH you didn't build sidewalks or trains! You astroturfed the shit out of oil. This is very embarrassing, I get it, but GOD DANN NO transportation with exploding dinosaurs that you frack out of gorgeous boreal forests ISNT NECESSARY AT ALL, we have invented train, bus, bicycle, electric cars, please for god sake stop working for astroturfing oil company proxies and get a fucking bike and then spit and be rude to all single drivers in all cities.
-
Nobody is going fast enough.
The fastest efforts going right now are half assed solutions.
I don't think you understand how urgently fucked we are.
Climate scientists are scientists. They can only tell youbwhat thry know. Science inherently moves slow, moves with certainty. Kind of the best thing about it.
But all these climate models keep getting hit with 'shit we didnt know could happen' and 'feedback effect nobody's ever seen before', even the grim ones.
So however bad the models are, we are more fuckef than that.
The turn radius on this thing is so slow that we may already be past the point of no return. Everything from here on might be a death rattle. Maybe, if you're young, from before you were born. We don't know how bad it is, we have sort of repeatedly proven that we can't know how bad it is, and all we know is how good it isn't.
And babe, its not good enough to be so fucking casual about shit.
Whatever effect you are currently feeling is the effect from our collected fuckedness 30 40 50 years ago. However fucked this summer felt? Thats the damage we had accrued and sent out when your parents were born.
Edit: we need to be at zero cars zero meat zero fossil fuels and decarbonizing as much production as we possibly can by now. We told the timeline where we could switch over gently to fuck off and die 50 years ago. I wasnt even fucking born yet. We told the timeline where we coukd just cut the shit and practice purely technical solutions with little lifestyle change (beyond things that are mostly good for us anyway) to fuck off and die 25 years ago. We let this go untreated, and now that the body is so wracked with cancer it's effecting our range of motion, and the doctors are desperately scrambling to set up a course of radical chemo radiation starvation and cutting to the bone in the desperate hope that there's still room for luck, we have decided that okay, maybe we might feel a little under the weather, and we can finally take the doctor's advice, and treat that upstart henry ford fellow with a baby asprin. But nothing crazy is called for here!
Am i the only one who feels insane when i have to explain this?
wrote last edited by [email protected]This kind of talk isn't really useful and is making the problem worse. Where are you getting all this from? You must have some good sources to make claims like this.
There wasn't a time line 25 years ago where we could use only technological solutions as said technological solutions didn't exist. Those have only been invented since then, many still haven't been invented or are still being worked on now. Take batteries for example, it took us until the 2010s to manufacture enough lithium ion batteries with the right chemistry to even think about using them as grid storage. Said batteries still have limited lifespans and manufacturing them is costly to the environment and requires lithium which has a limited supply. We really need Sodium ion batteries but those are only ramping production now. Starting to switch over 50 years ago would have been even more impossible, not that we understood the problem fully 50 years ago. This is all revising history.
Fyi CO2 levels have been higher in the past than they are now. None of this is actually new, it's just changing far faster than it would naturally. It's the speed that's the issue, not the actual magnitude of the change. It's a case of changing things faster than nature takes to adapt. We are still technically in an ice age after all. Pollutants like microplastics and forever chemicals are the new thing, not greenhouse gasses. No one has any idea what that might lead to in the long term.
You feel insane because your suggesting things should have happened before they are actually possible. You are saying things that are extremely alarmist without giving evidence and without considering context.
Edit:
There was one way to decarbonize earlier than 25 years ago or maybe before. It's called Nuclear. I wonder who prevented that? Oh wait it was climate activists. Funny that. -
I don't think this is gonna be a very popular response but here's my 2 cents after reading a lot of comments.
We are all products of out time. I'm not gonna blame ordinary people for believing what they were told when it was the general consensus at the time.
That doesn't excuse that behavior today. Today we know better.
But when my parents grew up, burning your garbage in the fire pit was considered recycling. It was the norm.
Today my parents and grandparents don't burn plastic in a fire pit. Because today we know better. But I don't think they ignored it 40 years ago. They just didn't know better.
Good thing we educate people on how to do what we can. Unfortunately, what individuals do doesn't matter much.
In school I did a project on climate change and in that research, I found that 1 single coal PowerPlant in Germany, released more co2, sulfur, monoxide and what not, in 1 month. Than every single registered vehicle in Sweden combined, does in a whole year.
So being a good citizen and taking my bike to the store and work instead of car (even during winter). Feels like a fart in the wind knowing that. Not to mention cargo-ships and what they use on international waters.
Exactly this. I tried to recycle paper in the 90s in my country and could not for the life of me find out where to go. I had come home from living in a country that did have recycling bins on every corner but even driving around, I could find zero paper recycling.
Even when aware and trying our best, we are quite powerless in general.
-
Your parents ignored this
I've been hearing about climate change consistently since the 1980s. Multiple iterations of liberal (and moderate conservative) politician have campaigned on a variety of (free market) mechanisms for capping or curbing carbon emissions. We even had a huge surge in R&D for green energy alternatives and electrification - first in the 70s and then again during the gas cost explosion of the 00s - that is (thank fucking god) finally paying off.
So I won't say they "ignored this". I will say that we had a very wealthy, very influential minority entrenched within the political class that profited enormously from fossil fuel extraction and deliberately suppressed decades of prior efforts to reduce emissions, both domestically and globally.
The Boomers weren't blind to climate change. They weren't even apathetic. They were outmatched, outplayed, and outspent. Much like with slavery in the 1800s and women's liberation in the 1900s and human rights in the 2000s, this is a fight that liberals have spent a lot of time losing. What wins they achieved felt significant in the moment, but remained dwarfed by the stubborn intractability of their wealthy, reactionary opposition.
Yep it just is a class war always with humans.
-
We did manage to change some things for the better - acid rain, ozone depletion, lead in everything. However with conflicting information and some corporations doing everything they can to muddy the consensus, it is hard to do the right thing. It is especially difficult if for years you think you've been doing the right thing and find out it was all fake - recycling.
And yet, I still recycle because what the hell else can I do? Just give up and send to landfill? Or hope in the dark that it's going to recycling.
We already reuse and reduce, I have some clothing from over 20 years ago.
-
Altman isn't sticking his head in the sand, he's delusional and selfish. He doesn't care what happens to the rest of the world after AGI.
...and in the past we were fighting and losing to similar billionaire corporatist figures.
-
Not to be that person, but my parents are completely incapable of comprehending this.
Not intellectually, but pragmatically and philosophically. They're like 60 years old, and even if it affects them in their lifetime, they'll be "dead in 20 years".
And on a low level, they're kind of right because most ordinary people aren't to blame for this, so shaming "parents" makes no sense.
Shame the international petroleum conglomerates, plastic producers, shipping, etc. You know, the actual emitters in the billions of gigatons.
but pragmatically and philosophically. They’re like 60 years old, and even if it affects them in their lifetime, they’ll be “dead in 20 years”.
Imagine saying this as if human prosperity wasn't built on people building places for their children and grandchildren.
Capitalism is one of very few philosophies that pretends that selfishness is good, and it would be silly not to blame people that believe in it for the consequences of that philosophy when implemented.
Ordinary western citizens are to blame, because ordinary western citizens could have changed this merely by being morally offended and voting for something else. Most of them personally chose to support capitalism over any alternative. To not even explore the space of possibilities, but to get paid off by corporate-government partnerships that were robbing both the future and the rest of the world.
-
A lot of ordinary people also say they want to do everything they can against climate change but then fail to make their own simple sacrafices like reusable cups, walking instead of driving, keeping the heat lower in winter etc. Everyone wants to end climate change but without sacraficing any modern conveniences
I would gladly sacrifice modern conveniences as part of a societal shift towards degrowth, but it's psychologically and socially taxing not to choose convenience when it is available. I want these conveniences taken away from me, or taxed into inconvenience.
And perhaps most importantly, when these conveniences are taken away at scale we can replace them at scale with other good things, the way we can't when making individual choices.
I do not want to drive but I can't buy a place in a walkable neighborhood when capitalism refuses to build them. I want to save on heating by living in an intentional community but society is so atomized and group housing so rare that I can't find one to call home.
The solution to a tragedy of the commons is not to have a few people still pay into the commons, it's to rebuild the system around the commons that makes it the best choice for you personally to support the commons and take sustainably.
-
This post did not contain any content.
And people think I'm crazy for starting an algae farm...
There is no quick fix.
"Science will figure something out"I am part of that science, and I can barely afford to scale beyond what I consider my carbon footprint.
narcimalgae on YouTube, although the algorithm killed it (500 to 6 views on my last video)so I may move to peertube soon.
-
Love this one. It’s one of the best illustrations of the “hockey stick effect” and a perfect way to explain why the excuse that “were just coming out of an ice age” is dead wrong.
-
This kind of talk isn't really useful and is making the problem worse. Where are you getting all this from? You must have some good sources to make claims like this.
There wasn't a time line 25 years ago where we could use only technological solutions as said technological solutions didn't exist. Those have only been invented since then, many still haven't been invented or are still being worked on now. Take batteries for example, it took us until the 2010s to manufacture enough lithium ion batteries with the right chemistry to even think about using them as grid storage. Said batteries still have limited lifespans and manufacturing them is costly to the environment and requires lithium which has a limited supply. We really need Sodium ion batteries but those are only ramping production now. Starting to switch over 50 years ago would have been even more impossible, not that we understood the problem fully 50 years ago. This is all revising history.
Fyi CO2 levels have been higher in the past than they are now. None of this is actually new, it's just changing far faster than it would naturally. It's the speed that's the issue, not the actual magnitude of the change. It's a case of changing things faster than nature takes to adapt. We are still technically in an ice age after all. Pollutants like microplastics and forever chemicals are the new thing, not greenhouse gasses. No one has any idea what that might lead to in the long term.
You feel insane because your suggesting things should have happened before they are actually possible. You are saying things that are extremely alarmist without giving evidence and without considering context.
Edit:
There was one way to decarbonize earlier than 25 years ago or maybe before. It's called Nuclear. I wonder who prevented that? Oh wait it was climate activists. Funny that.wrote last edited by [email protected]25 years ago
There was some tech stuff, new-deal-with-chinese-characteristics, and specifically a very climate conscious US president was elected, but everyone just let the other guy take office.
climate activists stopped nuclear
No. Dipshit appropriate environmental and residual anti nuclear activists, which were tangled up wuth a bunch of other movements, stopped it. Wouldve been nice though.
only technological solutions
I think i said 'no changes (that wouldnt have improved our quality of life anyway)', so things like modal shifts in transportation and moving to dense walkable cities or well cared for and/or utilized rural places
Things like solar and wind power (and yes nuclear, especially back then)
starting 50 years ago
Bitch have you not heard of jimmy fucking carter? Do you not remember the solar panels on the white house? Dude wasn't perfect, but he proposed both renewables and nuclear power, and i assume knew what the hell he was talking about (given his education). It would have taken some time, but if we had started then, i think we'd be in a pretty good place. I dont know much about the situation on the periphery, but i assume the USSR would have matched the americans if only for the sake of appearances.
whataboutism, absurd bullshit
Okay you dont seem like a serious person; i wish you luck at the fracktory.
-
But I’d do anything* to stop climate change!
::: spoiler Tap for spoiler
*I can still eat meat daily, have a house with a paved front yard, 2 SUVs in the garage, go on vacation via plane 3 times a year and buy cheap disposable stuff on Amazon, right?
:::Are you going to pay for the upfront cost of me getting a new car? What about moving somewhere where I can walk to my job? Pay for the difference between the things that I would prefer to buy because they'll last longer or the cheap ones that I can afford and work ok for now.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
And what were they supposed to do other than go out and vote in their own best interest?
-
Consumer use of private vehicles and air conditioning / heating absolutely have a non-negligible impact.
The glorious thing about climate change is it increases the NEED for air conditioning. There are populated places right now that you will die if you have to be outside without water for too long.
-
The planet is fine it’s the people who are fucked
wrote last edited by [email protected]We don’t exactly know where the tipping point towards a Venus Scenario is. We just know it’s somewhere past +12℃, and before +16℃.
And the problem isn’t so much that we will reach that temp - we will go extinct long before that point - but rather the warming process - with all of the feedback loops that it kicks off - will push the planet into a Venus Scenario.
So no. The planet is not fine. The “friction” of prior warming events that would slow its “inertia” - the slowly-migrating, slowly-adapting biospheres that continue to draw down CO2e - won’t have that capability this time around. It’s just all happening far too fast for them to migrate or adapt.
We have literally “cut the brakes” with the speed and inertia of the current warming we have created. And one very real consequence may be a dead planet with a superheated atmosphere.
-
25 years ago
There was some tech stuff, new-deal-with-chinese-characteristics, and specifically a very climate conscious US president was elected, but everyone just let the other guy take office.
climate activists stopped nuclear
No. Dipshit appropriate environmental and residual anti nuclear activists, which were tangled up wuth a bunch of other movements, stopped it. Wouldve been nice though.
only technological solutions
I think i said 'no changes (that wouldnt have improved our quality of life anyway)', so things like modal shifts in transportation and moving to dense walkable cities or well cared for and/or utilized rural places
Things like solar and wind power (and yes nuclear, especially back then)
starting 50 years ago
Bitch have you not heard of jimmy fucking carter? Do you not remember the solar panels on the white house? Dude wasn't perfect, but he proposed both renewables and nuclear power, and i assume knew what the hell he was talking about (given his education). It would have taken some time, but if we had started then, i think we'd be in a pretty good place. I dont know much about the situation on the periphery, but i assume the USSR would have matched the americans if only for the sake of appearances.
whataboutism, absurd bullshit
Okay you dont seem like a serious person; i wish you luck at the fracktory.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I don't use the term whataboutism in my post anywhere. So I don't know who you are quoting.
The not serious person here is you, saying we are all going to die anyway instead of encouraging people to do anything. I had to look this up as I don't know anything about Carter, but it turns out the panels he was installing are for hot water. They don't generate electricity. This makes perfect sense as it took much longer than that to develop photovoltaics and get them ready for mass production. Even now modern photovoltaic panels are fairly inefficient devices.
We already have walk-able cities in much of Europe. It's not a compete solution by itself, we still have cars. You are weirdly fixated on USA history when this is a global problem. It's not all about the USA. Stop pretending it's the only country that exists. India and China are the biggest polluters these days if I remember correctly, you should be focusing on them.
Edit: Carter was also aiming for 20% of energy in the US to be made renewably by 2020. That wouldn't have been anywhere near enough to stop climate change.
-
So I suppose I just have 15 more years to live huh?
I would say 10 of relative comfort, another 5-10 of increasing disasters (political, social, environmental, etc.) that tear apart civilization, and a final 5-10 of complete collapse where only small isolated communities still exist, and every day is a real struggle for survival against exceptionally hostile conditions.
Honestly, most scientific projections of resource exhaustion and environmental degradation point to 2050 as the point beyond which “civilization” really ceases to exist.
And honestly, I would be shocked if humanity still existed as any kind of a high-tech going concern much past that.
-
Not that renaming problems ever helps, but this is why I'm trying to push "anthropogenic runaway global heating" as a replacement for the weak formulation of "global warming" and the even weaker "climate change". It has the handy acronym of ARGH.
It has the handy acronym of ARGH.
Okay, that is hilarious.
-
And people think I'm crazy for starting an algae farm...
There is no quick fix.
"Science will figure something out"I am part of that science, and I can barely afford to scale beyond what I consider my carbon footprint.
narcimalgae on YouTube, although the algorithm killed it (500 to 6 views on my last video)so I may move to peertube soon.
Share a link here
-
@[email protected] When I saw the "Industrial Revolution" label next to the vertical increase in global temperatures, I couldn't help but recall of some text written in 1995 by a certain former math teacher, and how right he was about the Industrial Revolution's consequences...
I am out of the loop, what are you referring to?
