Temperatures above 50C used to be a rarity confined to two or three global hotspots, but the World Meteorological Organization noted that at least 10 countries have reported this level of searing heat in the past year: the US, Mexico, Morocco, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Pakistan, India and China.

In Iran, the heat index – a measure that also includes humidity – has come perilously close to 60C, far above the level considered safe for humans.

Heatwaves are now commonplace elsewhere, killing the most vulnerable, worsening inequality and threatening the wellbeing of future generations. Unicef calculates a quarter of the world’s children are already exposed to frequent heatwaves, and this will rise to almost 100% by mid-century.

    • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Living and dying are the same process. You can’t be born without dying. You could say biology condemns us all - very loosely - to a cult of death, as we must all participate.

      Capitalism is worse than that. Capitalism is an ideology of exploitation. I’m fine with dying, it’s my fault for being born. I don’t see why I must submit to exploitation while I do, temporarily, exist.

        • lath@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Just because you can’t recall it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. As a spermatozoon, you eagerly swam towards that egg, then that egg could have chosen to abort at any time. Yet here you are alive. You chose to be here. Deal with it, accept it and move on with your life.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Just because you can’t recall it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. As a spermatozoon, you eagerly swam towards that egg, then that egg could have chosen to abort at any time. Yet here you are alive. You chose to be here. Deal with it, accept it and move on with your life.

            does a delusional person choose to have delusions?

            Things that are outside of our psychological realm, and physical control are quite literally something we have no control over.

            • lath@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Yeah, there are plenty of things we have little to no control over.

              Having delusions is one of them for sure, but can we say for certain we don’t at least influence what those delusions are or which direction they take?

              • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                i mean you probably influence them, but much like dreams, are they really representative of anything other than your mind left to its own devices?

                Human conception may start at the sperm race, but human consciousness doesn’t begin until a few years into childhood, so at the end of the day, who knows.

                • lath@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Can thought be considered a process that begins after being affected by an external stimulus? And without prior experience on which to base our response, we can only react according to the conditions set by that stimulus?

                  So is it truly we who control our thoughts or are we just acting in a predetermined set of reactionary impulses based on the accumulation of our personal experiences and gained knowledge over our lifetime so far?

                  We who are so easily influenced into outrage by trigger phrases specific to our fears or spurred into action by resonating soundbites promising our desires, are those our thoughts or are they just the mind left to its own devices?

                  I really don’t know. But it’s probably some food for thought in a way.

      • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        “it’s the least worst way to spiral into definite hell on earth” doesn’t really sound that positive.

        It doesn’t matter how “safe” capitalism is, it’s not solving our problems and we need something different.

      • Leg@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Capitalism has a historical tendency of imperializing all over the place and sabotaging other systems. It did not earn its spot as “best”, despite what capitalistic propaganda would have you believe.

  • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    If the world was warming even faster than scientists thought it would, seemingly jumping years ahead of predictions, would that mean even more crucial decades of action had been lost?

    Yes. Yes it would.

    • sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Rivers in Alaska have been running bronzish-orange… because the permafrost is melting.

      The ‘perma’ frost, is melting.

      That has huge amounts of methane locked up in at.

      Which is 8 to 80x more effective at being a greenhouse gas than CO2.

      And also ancient bacteria that could cause previously unknown kinds of diseases in wildlife and possibly humans, they now may or may not be seeping into the environment.

      We have already had a consecutive 12 months at or above 1.5C global average temps, as of last month.

      Shit’s looking pretty bleak.

      • FollyDolly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Glaciers are reaching tipping points as well. Insane heat waves at both poles. It’s over guys. Most poeple don’t realize it yet but it’s over. Those glaciers and poles took an entire iceage to form, and they are not going to come back.

          • superkret@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            The entire point of trying to save the climate and environment is to keep the world a nice place for our kids.

              • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Contraceptives exist, as do abortives in case the first ones fail.

                The only two reasons anyone would have kids as the world is going are ignorance, or a sadistic desire to watch said kids suffer. In which case the fun is certainly not consensual (or shared) on the victim’s part.

                • cheddar@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Let me tell you, most people don’t doomscroll 24/7. People have kids because that’s what chemistry in their bodies makes them want, that’s what drives us and other species to procreate. Things are bad, but these arrogant and condescending comments are extremely stupid. You aren’t better or smarter than people who have kids.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            I hated that goddamn news cycle. Conservatives poisoned the well so much that you couldn’t argue against that dumb, pointless policy without being labeled a Heritage Foundation shill.

      • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I can at least alleviate your worries of ancient bacteria.

        Even our weakest antibiotics could wipe them out as they have evolved zero resistance to it. That’s assuming they can even infect humans in the first place.

        • Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’m no microbiologist but couldn’t the ancient bacteria hybridize with modern bacteria to develop antibiotic resistance similar to a wolf and dog hybrid having a tolerance to humans?

          • Enkrod@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            That’s not how bacteria multiply. There is horizontal gene-transfer, but that would be a very slim chance.

            No ancient bacteria aren’t the problem, multi-resistant strains that have already evolved and are evolving in our clinics are the real problem, some bacteria that haven’t been an issue for quite some time, because our antibiotics simply killed them, have now developed resistances and are suddenly becoming deadly again.

            E. Coli, Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella, some of the most prevalent bacteria in humans are rapidly becoming multi-drug-resistant and resistant to desinfectants like chlorine. These superbugs already account for a shockingly high number of deaths in healthcare facilities and the situation is only getting worse as more and more countries use increasing amounts of antimicrobials, kickstarting microbial evolution into overdrive.

        • The_v@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Have you ever looked up how long it takes for bacteria to evolve resistance after exposure to an antibiotic?

          2-3 years… Yeah…

          More concerning is a virus in my opinion. Jumping species is common and it’s the novelty to the immune system thats the danger. How much damage would an influenza strain from 3-4000 years combining with modern strains cause?

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            If that was all there was to it, no bacteria would be affected by antibiotics anymore. And yes, they’re less effective, but it’s far from an obsolete tool. We just have to be smarter about using them.

      • littlewonder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Definitely don’t watch the Arctic Sinkhole documentary from PBS Nova if you like sleeping at night. It’s all about the trapped methane in the permafrost and the trapped gasses under the permafrost. Shit is getting real scary. It wasn’t even sensationalist.

  • D1G17AL@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Its cause none of these systems are static or by themselves in a vacuum. There are feedback loops in all parts of our environment. Its not a coincidence that the temperature started to accelerate after the recent series of MAJOR volcanic eruptions in the many parts of the worlds oceans. Throw in the absolute monstrosity that is human industry and well the feedback there is more heat from industry combined with greenhouse gases means the the heat in those areas rises. What does heat do? It rises and moves outwards until it reaches equilibrium. Where is it cold? The arctic and antarctic. What’s happening in those places recently? Oh yeah huge spikes in temperature that are causing shifts by over 40-50 degrees Fahrenheit or about 8-10 degrees celsius. Sure it’s technically still freezing over the arctic and antarctic for portions of the year. However the arctic has, for the last several years during summer, been almost entirely ice free. The North fucking Pole is ice free during the summer time. That’s fucking insane. Everything feeds into everything else with our environment and climate.

    Until more people in power actually understand these facts, we are all going to suffer needlessly.

    • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The issue here is that leading climate scientists are saying our current models aren’t accounting for the actual reported climate, and they’re not sure why it’s off. They’re hoping the new NASA climate program will provide more data for the causes. Currently it’s not explainable by CO2 emissions, sulfur from boats, volcanoes, etc, all of which when factored in still don’t account for more than 90% of how much warmer it is getting.

      Yes, human caused global warming is real and happening. The big concern right now is it’s happening much faster than expected and we have no good, proven theory as to why. That’s a problem.

  • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    The reason nothing will be done is because the only realistic option we have to save our planets ability to sustain life is economic degrowth.

    We don’t have enough of the minerals we need to go fully nuclear or renewable and even getting close would use up vast amounts of the very same energy were looking to save in the first place.

    As the record levels of equality directly after ww2 showed, economic degrowth due to nearly all the men being at war, only results in the loss of the super rich which is why they’ll never allow economic degrowth.

    We all work too much, produce too much and pollute too much. Worse, we’re all forced to produce the very wealth thats used to force us into wage-slavery and kill our planet.

    The answer is and will always be the strategic refusal of labour, above what we need to survive and have a good quality of life. This, by default, will result in economic degrowth.

    Want to sit around and do nothing to save the planet? Well, now you can.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Uranium is extremely common on Earth. What minerals are we lacking to go nuclear? If you were arguing that we need to switch the type of reactors we use, I could see that. A lack of fissile material isn’t an issue.

          • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Since when do you need either of those to build a wind turbine? We are talking about very simple machines here, plenty of ways to build one.

              • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                You don’t need photovoltaics to use solar power. Never heard of the solar power tower? Or the ones using molten salt for heat storage?

                • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  The earth receives just over 1 billion watts of raw energy from the sun daily. Using that energy to boil steam to turn tubines caps that energy generation ability to 105,566,992 watts of power if we capture all the solar radiation that hits earth.

                  Humanity currently uses 17.5 terrawatts of power daily. How do you make up the 95% shortfall? Little hint, wind and hydroelectric isn’t enough to make up that gap. Nuclear is currently our only option outside of asteroid mining.

                  Edited: I read the number wrong.

      • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        If I remember correctly, we don’t have enough of it to go fully nuclear with our current energy demands. More so, we’ve mined nearly all of the soil thats anything above 0.02% uranium. As such, not only do we not have enough on the planet, getting it and refining it would almost defeat the whole point of doing so in the first place.

        It is a problem in that there might be plenty of it but that doesn’t mean there’s enough.

        Just to be clear, I’m not saying we have to go back to the stone ages. Its just that we can’t afford the super rich anymore.

        • Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Pretty sure there’s enough weapons grade plutonium to run the US for 100 years in decommissioned nuclear weapons alone.

          I think 100 years is enough time to build pumped hydro storage and renewables like solar/wind.

          • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            The problem is that there a major, major shortage of one of the isotopes needed to re-enrich weapons grade uranium (pu 238). Thats before you get to the vast energy inefficiency of doing it which isn’t a problem, if you’re just decommissioning them anyway and you don’t care about energy consumption. However, in this instance, you would need to worry about energy consumption as well as the isotope there won’t be enough of to convert even a fraction of it.

            Again, even if you had 100 years, there aren’t enough of the specialist minerals needed for hydro storage and renewables.

            Essentially theres" a hole in our bucket."

            The only answer is degrowth.

              • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                I’m not saying it can’t be converted or that the amount couldn’t, if refined, potentially fuel America for a number of years. So, I’m not sure what the link was for. I said its not feasible, due to the inefficiency of doing it on mass.

                What about the energy transition materials like lithium, nickel and cobalt? We don’t have enough of those. All the windmills in the world won’t help, if you can’t convert motion into electricity.

                Even then, copper looks to be facing an impending shortage. More still, refining enough silicone to supply the world with and keep up with increased demand of energy would have a colossal carbon footprint, almost big enough to cancel out the benefit. You’ll have to start refining soil thats 0.000000000001% silicone before you got even halfway through. Yeah, we have loads of these things but getting enough of it, in a pure enough form, to power the whole world simply isn’t realistic.

                We can’t keep up with the speed that we increase our energy usage with the resources we have on the planet. Its a circular problem with only one solution. I’m not saying we have to go back to the primitive. We just have the treat the planet as though its resources are finite.

                They’ll sell us any flavour of distraction other than “work less, do less, slow down and enjoy life more.” Whatever way you cut it, its the only answer.

                • Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  You seem to be trying to push a narrative that I don’t oppose as if I do. I support degrowth but your reasons are flawed.

                  Pumped Hydro, solar, and wind don’t really use lithium, nickel, or cobalt. Those are mostly used in NCM Liion cells that none of these use. Permanent magnets would probably be the biggest headache tbh.

                  Idk why we’d need silicone, we’re not making sex toys here. /s silicon is most common in sand and rocks, something there is plenty of basically everywhere.

                  I don’t care what you’re saying for this circular problem. I’ve literally not addressed it once because I agree with you, I just don’t agree with your reasoning.

                • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  What about the energy transition materials like lithium, nickel and cobalt? We don’t have enough of those. All the windmills in the world won’t help, if you can’t convert motion into electricity.

                  We literally don’t need any of those. Grid scale storage I don’t think has used Nickel and Cobalt for some time, as the best way is to use Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries which need fewer replacements (longer cycle life) and are less volatile (explosive). Sodium batteries remove the need for even Lithium. Sodium is many times more abundant btw. As bad as they are Lead Acid batteries are also an option, as well as many other battery technologies made with less rare earth materials. Heck you could just do pumped hydro and not worry about batteries at all.

                  You also don’t need any of those materials to make electricity from motion. A generator is a fairly simple device needing only coils of wire and a few moving parts. Some need permanent magnets but even that isn’t hard really. Storing power was always the problem, not making it.

                  Likewise current reactors are a joke in terms of fuel efficiency. Basing any estimate on current reactor technology being used is kind of silly, as we already know we can do so much better. The majority of earth’s nuclear fuel is in fertile materials, not fissile materials. We have known this for a long time by the way. Decades ago countries like the USA and Japan were doing research into reactors using U-238, more than 100 times as abundant as U-235. It has been demonstrated that breeder reactors for Plutonium from U-238 are feasible even 50 or 60 years ago. The reason we don’t do this is because U-235 reactors were determined to be cheaper, and probably safer. I think sacrificing some safety and cost is necessary when up against something like climate change. With modern technology I am sure safety issues could be reduced or eliminated. Likewise Thorium is a thing, but that’s more experimental than U-238 to Plutonium technology.

                  If we are talking about solar panels: just don’t. Solar panels are mostly glass and silicon. I believe some rarer materials are needed to make them as efficient as they are now, but that doesn’t mean they are actually needed. In fact why bother with solar panels at all? They aren’t even the most efficient way of turning solar power into useful energy. Solar systems that work using mirrors to heat molten salt have their own energy storage built-in, and don’t require exotic materials, and are more efficient anyway. They might require more investment, or be more complex to deploy, but overall they are a great option.

                  Degrowth might be necessary in the short term. Long term wise though humanity very much has room to grow further. We haven’t even talked about mining the moon yet, and if we can’t do that we are very much screwed anyway. Being dependant on one planet is horrifically bad for long term survivability. You think climate change is an extinction level event? Try a gamma ray blast from a pulsar.

                  All you’ve really demonstrated is that you don’t understand technology specifically renewables and nuclear. There is a real concern with lack of rare materials, but not for renewables. The real issue is computers. Modern computers and especially smartphones need a lot of rare things. So constantly replacing your smartphone might not be practical anymore, and things like battery life and processing speed might actually get worse for a while as we are forced to use alternative materials. Not really a huge deal in the scheme of things though.

                  Also thinking the rich elite are the only people consuming things at an unsustainable rate is hilarious. They use more resources per person obviously, but the number of them is also really small. If you actually looked into it you would probably find that lost of the consuming of resources is to support the lower and middle classes. Don’t get me wrong oil executives are a real issue because of how they effect government policy and the behaviour of the rest of society. They do deserve a significant share of the blame. Not every rich person is an oil executive though. Having ultra rich people around is bad but this isn’t the reason why.

                • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  They’ll sell us any flavour of distraction other than “work less, do less, slow down and enjoy life more.” Whatever way you cut it, its the only answer.

                  It’s really telling that this is regarded as such a terrible thing by almost everyone.

          • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Sure, I’m all for getting rid of them but it really seems to be the only option. It really won’t be that bad. It’ll just mean we can’t all take the piss with energy, lose the super rich, eat less meat and do a lot less work.

            Its that we’ve all been made to see the idea of degrowth as something terrible because the rich would be the first thing to go. You just can’t have the rich without a vast amounts of excess production.

            Please think about this: why shouldnt working less and polluting less be the first thing we should try, if we really wanted to save the planet etc.?

            • primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              I completely agree, but I also think we should be pursuing every avenue of possible solution simultaneously, some of which might be energy intensive. I have the feeling we are far more climate-fucked than is immediately apparent.

    • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The answer is and will always be the strategic refusal of labour, above what we need to survive and have some quality of life. This, by default, will result in economic degrowth.

      It’s at the point where I don’t accept the label of being human. Humans lack the logic and morality I identify with.

        • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I’m a living being who does not want to associate with humans.

          Autistic people are more likely to be Therian (identify as partly non-human and non-humanoid animal): Therianthropy: Wellbeing, Schizotypy, and Autism in Individuals Who Self-Identify as Non-Human, Clegg et al., Society & Animals 2019.

          Looking at some brief descriptions of the terms (I’m only mildly aware of them) there is also the related group of Otherkin, who identify as not fully human, but do identify full with human-like sapience. The personal experiences of a ‘Machinekin’ (identifying as part sapient robot) are presented in _ Exploring Other-Than-Human Identity: Religious Experiences in the Life-Story of a Machinekin _, Shea, S.C, 2020, published in Religions. Neve discusses the relationship between autism and feeling othered in terms of gender and non-human Machinekin identity first hand.

          Searching for autistic and otherkin, I find regular discussions in autistic spaces about how people believe their otherkin and autistic identities and experiences overlap. Much of this is in Autism / Neurodivergence discords, which can’t be searched. However, these discords provide a managed group of fellow travellers with information that doesn’t leak out to search engines. Nevertheless, some discussion about this is searchable. Here’s one comment:

          Alienkin. So much wrong planet syndrome. Hi, yes. Not alien, definitely relate to alienness though.

          So much of my life spent asking “Why do neurotypicals do X thing?” only to later find out that they do it because it’s done, it’s their social identity. If their social identity mows the lawn, they mow the lawn. It doesn’t matter that there’s a cost of noise pollution and ecological destruction. They do it because their social identity does it. If their social identity revolved around jumping off of cliffs, they’d do that too. It’s why there’s so much “acceptable” ritual sacrifice, war, and other such horrific acts of atrocity throughout human history.

          So I definitely relate to alienness. To do something “because it is done, the done thing” is the most utterly bizarre and strange concept to me. I understand to do something if it might be ethical, or kind, or clever, with an accompanying reason. But because “it is done?” It’s bizarre.

          Another discussion is titled “Does being autistic feel like being a robot who is trying to learn how to be human?” Top responses agree to this, giving various explanations of why it occurs, or how it feels, including:

          I feel more like I’m missing a sense. It’s like in every interaction in a group there is a second conversation only I can’t hear that tells people when It’s their turn to speak and elaborates on what the person means. I’m watching everything and analyzing everything to try to figure out what everyone else is getting that I’m not.

          and

          Yea kinda, or like an alien, who forgot his human handbook on scp147, if you have seen the show resident alien, I related a sadly large amount to the alien.

          and

          That’s why folks called me Dr. Spock growing up. I come from Vulcan, live long and prosper

          There are questions about this on sites like Quora, with responses like “I’ve known since I was a kid that I had autism, so this might not relate to me. However, as a kid, I called myself an alien in this world. It’s probably common when it comes to robots, but I was an alien to this world.”

          • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Unless you are legitimately an alien or a cat or something that somehow got on Lemmy (and I apologize if this is the case), then you are a human. You can’t identify your way out of being a member of this species.

            The fact my fellow autistic people are disidentifying from humanity is extremely concerning. Even worse I can understand why given the behaviour of so many humans being what it is. Plus constantly being marginalized in human societies doesn’t help.

            The solution though isn’t to stop identifying as being human and pretend to be something else. The solution is to re-evaluate what being human is. Too much emphasis in popular culture is placed on humanity or being human as some positive thing where someone who is truly human couldn’t be the villain or the mass murderer. The reality is the human race is broad and doing a genocide is just as human as inventing the vaccine for TB. Those things we can do because we are human, with human capabilities. Another animal wouldn’t think to make a vaccine, or to do a genocide, they do what they because of instincts, learned behavior, and survival.

            • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Unless you are legitimately

              I’m legitimately someone who has no emotional connection to humans as a group.

              The solution though isn’t to stop identifying as being human and pretend to be something else.

              Fun fact: a lot about what it means to be humans is also pretending to be human. Apart from the observable biological / genetic / genealogical classification differences, everything else about humanity is entirely created by humans, and they can disagree about many features of it.

              I have no interest in that pretence. I do not identify with humans. If you want to change that, endorse society / the majority to attempt to feed all children. That’s my moral benchmark for when I will feel like I align with human principles.

              Another animal wouldn’t think to make a vaccine

              I am absolutely and completely sure that time and space are both infinite, and therefore the chance of us being the only intelligent life is zero.
              I am also absolutely and completely sure that, given that time and space is infinite, and cosmological time involves the destruction and rebirth of the existence of matter itself in a cyclical process, that humans are - given an objective view of cosmological time - no more important than any other animal. We, and all our works, are just as transient.

              • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Fun fact: a lot about what it means to be humans is also pretending to be human. Apart from the observable biological / genetic / genealogical classification differences, everything else about humanity is entirely created by humans, and they can disagree about many features of it.

                Humanity is a species. Homo sapiens. Anyone claiming otherwise has fallen into the trap set by movies and popular culture about inhumane actions, dehumanizing the other, and every other time people who are homo sapiens are not teated as humans.

                I have no interest in that pretence. I do not identify with humans. If you want to change that, endorse society / the majority to attempt to feed all children. That’s my moral benchmark for when I will feel like I align with human principles.

                There is no single moral standard for our entire species. In fact while I am here I will say there is no proof for any kind of morality even existing in the objective universe. It’s an entirely made up concept. If we ever encounter aliens of what have you there is a good chance they have radically different behavioral standards for their species than ours.

                I am absolutely and completely sure that time and space are both infinite, and therefore the chance of us being the only intelligent life is zero.
                I am also absolutely and completely sure that, given that time and space is infinite, and cosmological time involves the destruction and rebirth of the existence of matter itself in a cyclical process, that humans are - given an objective view of cosmological time - no more important than any other animal. We, and all our works, are just as transient.

                Well that escalated quickly. You went from plausible science to making up bullshit very quickly.

                destruction and rebirth of the existence of matter itself in a cyclical process

                Yeah you apparently don’t know much about modern physics.

                Weather or not aliens do exist changes nothing about the fact you are human. You can’t escape that incontrovertible biological fact. Don’t even try. Stop listening to society cry “oh the humanity” and actually look at the facts. Humanity is just an intelligent species, not a moral standard to cling to or something to turn around and reject.

                • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Thank you for telling me you don’t respect my Buddhist beliefs, it’s been very interesting.

                  Very good job at making me want to identify with humans more, as well.

  • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Global warming is a test. We’re failing the test, so the warming is going to start accelerating until we learn our lesson

    • blind3rdeye@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      And I’d be ok with this. I see that humans are failing the test. I think it would be totally fair for us to take some really huge losses as a consequence of our collective hubris. But the thing that makes me sad and angry is that we’re taking down everything else with us.

      There’s such a huge diversity of life, basically just minding its own business in a totally sustainable way. It’s been like that for billions of years. More than 1,000,000,000 years. But then humans work out that burning stuff is an easy way to do mass-production, and in less then 1000 years things start turning to shit - for everyone. That’s so unfair. If it was just our own house we were burning down, I’d say its fair. But we’re burning down the whole world. We’re already causing mass extinction, and by all predictions it is going to get much much worse.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        it’ll all return in due time, the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs was a major extinction event in the same caliber as global warming is likely to be.

      • Maeve@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Other organisms and natural disasters do that, too. Ice ages, meteors, waves of diseases. The difference seems to be we have the consciousness to predict consequences, then decide whether to embark upon a path of behavior, or continue it when latent consequences emerge. I guess the question ends up being whether the course chosen is “natural,” and how can we know, since plenty of organisms kill the host, while also surviving and even propagating? Then observation also changes the behavior of things. And we don’t kill everything. Just whatever life is left continues to evolve in expected and unexpected ways.

    • SendMePhotos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Mother Nature, Earth, or Gaia, is an organism. In my loose perspective, I like to think that this is it’s “fever” attempt at eliminating the virus.

      • Zacryon@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        And thereby eliminating a whole bunch of other species than just humans as well.

        Although I’m totally in for the occasional misanthropy, I don’t like seeing it as “just a fever” anymore as too many species will go down. Life will probably persevere in the end, but so will probably a bunch of rich shitpieces, who are significantly responsible for this fever in the first place.

        • SendMePhotos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Our world has gone through many life cycles in the past. At the beginning, was darkness, at the end, probably the same (unless it’s a Futurama time cycle).

          The earth will continue on and life will find a way. At this time, we, as humans, have screwed the pooch and now the pooch will screw us. We used the earth and culled it’s resources. We are taking no consideration to the world around us, and instead focus on ourselves alone.

          All of the movies about aliens are true. Humans are selfish, greedy, parasites.

          • Maeve@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Our carcasses could end up being petrochemicals of the emerging life forms.