I wish people would take this more seriously and understand climate science has nothing to do with politics.
klysm · 1h ago
Unfortunately it has everything to do with politics because fixing it requires political action
hedora · 1h ago
Yeah, but if you’re a human that expects to live another 10-20 years, it’s strongly in your self interest to take action.
In that sense, it shouldn’t be political.
toomuchtodo · 54m ago
What is the age of the average politician?
fzeroracer · 34m ago
Well, the key thing is that many of them don't expect to live longer than 20 years, which means its strongly in their self interest to instead grab as much power, money and influence NOW no matter the cost.
It's not an understatement to say a lot of the ultra wealthy almost belong to a cult of nihilism either. We've ceded power to people who only care about things in the immediate future and the end result is disasterous.
cyanydeez · 1h ago
unfortunately, climate scientists need to model the politics involved in solving the problem.
The easiest way to do that is to create two forces, simulating a zombie apocalypse. One force is the "good" guys who want to maximize the number of survivors and the "bad" guys who want to maximize the amount of resources per survivor.
You can then see how, as the climate change destroys habitats, forcing good guys and bad guys into closer quarters, the tension between resource allocation and survivability naturally creates strife.
Also, the models can't do shit about predicting volcanos, eruptions, ocean burps and a bunch of aperiodic events that can expel methane and CO2 all without billionaires flying their jets around convincing everyone that Technology Jesus will save us.
Anyway, it's a seriously bad position to think that "if only we accepted climate change" that there'd suddenly be an agreement on how to implement "fair" controls on the drivers of change.
In that sense, it shouldn’t be political.
It's not an understatement to say a lot of the ultra wealthy almost belong to a cult of nihilism either. We've ceded power to people who only care about things in the immediate future and the end result is disasterous.
The easiest way to do that is to create two forces, simulating a zombie apocalypse. One force is the "good" guys who want to maximize the number of survivors and the "bad" guys who want to maximize the amount of resources per survivor.
You can then see how, as the climate change destroys habitats, forcing good guys and bad guys into closer quarters, the tension between resource allocation and survivability naturally creates strife.
Also, the models can't do shit about predicting volcanos, eruptions, ocean burps and a bunch of aperiodic events that can expel methane and CO2 all without billionaires flying their jets around convincing everyone that Technology Jesus will save us.
Anyway, it's a seriously bad position to think that "if only we accepted climate change" that there'd suddenly be an agreement on how to implement "fair" controls on the drivers of change.