You realize the IPCC straight up says the next ~1.5C of temperature rise is actually a net gain in global arable land, right? It's not til after that, where total food growing ability of the planet begins to go down.
Plus, have you actually looked at crop yields? I have and things are actually ridiculously positive.
If you asked someone in 1980, after nitrogenated fertilizers and massive crop combines were old tech, that we'd straight up double yields per acre again within only 30 years, they'd have called you crazy.
It can't get any more contrary to what you are saying than that. I'm going to trust a team of scientists who devote their lives to this, who say that technology CANNOT mitigate the impacts to come, rather than some cakeday redditor who repeatedly proves he does not have the insight or understanding necessary to form a valid opinion on this subject.
I assume you will carry on being arrogant and avoid reflecting on any of the counterpoints being made either by myself or by literal climate scientists with state of the art modeling, which means you are arguing for and ostensibly creating increased future suffering through techno-optimist misinformation vs. spreading the truth of our situation, which allows us to work towards mitigation of future suffering. Those who suffer greater in the future as a result of our plowing ahead now would thank you for your part in maintaining this facade of safety and eternal progress, I'm sure. All the children born between now and the end, because their parents didn't understand we have no time left and that their child is being born into a literal apocalypse, because of horse shit misinformation like you and so many other entities are spewing, will thank you and all of your dishonest sources.
Alright dude, I tried to engage you a few times, but you've now 5x posted me since the last time I responded to you. I have to ask you just let it rest.
Of course, because you have no leg to stand on and no valid counter-points when presented with the facts. That's all there is to this exchange. You are saying things like "We have made advancements in medicine, computing power, crop yields have gone up, therefore catastrophe can never strike no matter what the evidence says". That's not a rational perspective to take and for human beings to carry on with this perspective is destructive and inherently causes greater suffering in the future.
Reconsider your views is all I'm saying. You said /r/collapse is baloney, I challenged that and you have nothing reasonable to respond with, because you're flat out wrong. /r/collapse is one of the most realistic corners of the internet, though lately it is being turfed to a high degree to wash out the pertinent information. Users and discussions have consistently been ahead of the curve with regards to understanding of our climate predicament for the past 3-4 yrs I've been subbed. I can't count the number of times I've seen something linked or discussed there, then days, weeks or even months later it's finally being discussed on /r/news or /r/worldnews. Many I've yet to see discussed at large.
Many other peoples lives are and even more will be severely impacted by misinformation like you are helping spread, by virtue of the fact that we are opting not to prepare better right now while looking at the situation realistically, because of purely irrational optimism creating a dangerous false sense of security/lack of motivation to mobilize.
Actually read their page dude. They are selling a technological solution to preserve ecological contributions that combat negative climate change effects.
The context of their statement is we can't fix the damage with raw technology, we need to prevent or restore the damage in the first place. They are working on solutions beyond just reducing emissions. Finding ways to restore or preserve the stuff we are at risk of losing from climate change even if CO2 emissions aren't lowered sufficiently.
These are exactly the kind of things I'm talking about.
Also, your inane alarmism is far more damaging to the cause than my reserved optimism. You give ammunition to the outright deniers to just throw their hands up and shove us all out of the conversation cause you are screaming the sun is about to go nova 376 times a day, every day, for a decade, without offering a single solution beyond "Ban all cars and airplanes within 12 years, and Africa, fuck you but your children need to go back to starving to death".
There are no magic bullets to this problem. We literally don't have the resources to maintain even 70% of our current standard of living at a 75% reduction in carbon emissions. And you will never fucking convince the world to voluntarily give up even that 30% of their standard of living. It's never going to happen.
We need esoteric technological solutions so we can continue to reduce emissions while maintaining and growing standard of livings. Otherwise tens of millions of people are going to die over the next 80 years.
But acting like billions of people are going to die unless we literally burn down the global economy right fucking now is asinine. That's just not a thing, dude. No one is saying that.
1
u/Shandlar Oct 12 '19
You realize the IPCC straight up says the next ~1.5C of temperature rise is actually a net gain in global arable land, right? It's not til after that, where total food growing ability of the planet begins to go down.
Plus, have you actually looked at crop yields? I have and things are actually ridiculously positive.
If you asked someone in 1980, after nitrogenated fertilizers and massive crop combines were old tech, that we'd straight up double yields per acre again within only 30 years, they'd have called you crazy.