It’s like the Irish potato famine - Ireland had the output to support themselves. You’d think capitalism would bow to survival - but it doesn’t

Will we cut off exports to keep people alive? The people with money won’t.

The rubber has met the road. Physics has caught up with creative accounting. If we don’t act now, will we act when people start dying?

That’s basically what I’m saying - the US massively overproduces food. There’s many problems with how it’s done and how it’s used, but the Americas aren’t likely to starve. So long as the US stands, starvation isn’t likely - we literally burn crops to keep production at a level where we could feed much of the world

Climate refugees aren’t murderhobos - they’re people. People that will mostly without a job, often living out of their cars, and largely desperate. They need just as much to survive, but desperate people do desperate things. The ones that aren’t desperate will integrate, the ones who are will be a burden on the system

Let’s say Florida or Texas start bleeding population. Almost nowhere is equipped to handle 5 million more people in a short time frame - it would wreak havoc on the job market, strain supply chains, and lead to a massive increase in crime. Desperate people do desperate things

Yes, it’s our current problems magnified. There is enough to go around, but not like we do it today. We have to restructure the world - will we do it today, while we have breathing room, will we do it in a decade, when our systems fall apart around us, or will we do it decades from now, when the choice is between sacrifice and death

Climate change is here - it’s a right now problem. If we give it time, it could collapse everything - if the US collapses entirely, a famine in Toronto is a possiblity. Every city could starve. I don’t think we’ll get to that point, but there will be death. There is already death. The sooner we start to address reality, the less suffering our species will undergo

I don’t think humanity could die out unless Earth becomes another Venus. We’re too adaptable, too widespread for that. And if we’ve already lost, who cares. It’s a pointless line of thinking. We could be screwed, but I don’t think​ we are…I think the Earth trends towards a stability humans can live with. I think we have more systems balancing us, if we go down that road it’ll be a slow and painful one we won’t live to see

This is a problem that will affect you, it will affect everyone. We can minimize it - many will die no matter what we do. But most could survive, but only if we change the systems at play - I think we’ll get there, but the question is how much suffering we endure before then

We could. It’s a totally solvable problem - until it isn’t. If an aquifer is dry and you’re already rationing the water, what can you do? Presumably ship in enough water to keep people alive, if not to sustain commercial needs too

Which is going to drain water from somewhere else, and what if they’re having the same issue? Take it from further. Salt lake City was looking into the idea of building a pipeline from the Mississippi, and I’m sure someone is looking into building a fleet of water tankers and checking if there’s profit to be had

Now, where’s the part in all this where we take back water rights? Where’s the part where we start to fix the problem?

You know how we had SARS, and bird flu, and swine flu, and MERS? And every time scientists rang the alarm bell, but it turned out to not be a big deal? It’s because they knew COVID was inevitable - they knew the sketchy meat markets were a huge vector for a coronavirus to cross the species barrier.

COVID could’ve been much worse, but it certainly affected everyone. It also probably could have been prevented, or at least delayed

These smaller, regional problems are warning signs. A lot of people are dying from them already, but if we don’t take them seriously they’re just going to get big enough to have global effects. Not in the next century, in the next decade

Are we going to go extinct from climate change? I don’t think so. Are you going to die from climate change? Probably not. Will someone you know die from it? Possibly. Will it negatively impact your life? Absolutely, it already has, and it will keep doing so in interestingly obvious ways

Because it’s a monopoly created by international agreement. It’s like a phone number - it needs to be routable in the system, but if you follow the standards, you can get integrated into the system as a registrar

The top level domains are owned by countries - the UK has .UK, the US has .com and .gov, the UK has .io (because they stole it), but most countries have just one. They charge a fee to register a secondary domain, and the registrar can charge whatever they want to their customers to register on their behalf

This is just the centralized system though - you could build your own, AOL tried to do that through “keywords” back in the 90s

That’s not the effects I’m talking about - what we were talking about specifically was water shortages, across the US we’ve drained aquifers that will need centuries to build back up. Another fun side effect is crazy sinkholes

Droughts and lack of snowpack obviously play into it, but across the Western states it’s already a critical problem - and we’ve done very little to address it. We don’t have a plan, and the problem isn’t going to fix itself - wild ideas like water pipelines across multiple states have been proposed, we could provide drinking water in tankers temporarily, but ultimately this just buys a bit more time. This is a right now problem - we’ve been rationing and talking about this future problem since I was a child, but water needs have only gone up

As for other similar issues happening right now - wildfires across the continent, massive floods everywhere, massive crop failures in China and India, Spain turning into a desert, algae blooms killing already depleted fisheries, deadly heatwaves, polar vortexes, bigger and slower hurricanes hitting places unprepared for them - the list goes on

It’s a right now problem. It affects the vulnerable first, but it’s already touched all of us in one way or another. But what happens when the sinks in salt lake City run dry? What happens when someone’s house is burned down in a wildfire, twice? What happens when the power grid of Texas keeps going down every heat wave or cold snap?

People who can move will move. People who can’t will die in place or become climate refugees when things get bad enough. It will be just inconveniences and news of distant tragedies until somewhere hits a tipping point - hopefully you’re not in the wrong place at the wrong time, but even then you’ll feel the aftershocks

I had a conversation with a friend. A well educated friend, who has devoted his life to the cause

He thought he was fighting for his children or grandchildren. I told him no, we’ve been saying that for two generations - this is our problem. We will feel the hurt. Your water supply is not guaranteed, our food so supply could run dry one year. Our parents were told this was a future generation problem - we’re that generation… This is already happening

In the US, in the EU - some places are already feeling it, but we will all feel it soon

Uh huh

It’s more than that - he failed to create PayPal so his group bought a competitor, he didn’t found Tesla or spaceX - he claimed he did, then reached settlements with the actual founders to not contest his claims. He did start the boring company. It didn’t get off the ground because he can’t build a team

NASA doesn’t have effective control of their budget anymore. Congress holds the purse strings and uses them like a harness

NASA gets funding to do something - like go to the moon, or track CO2 emissions. But it comes with strings - sometimes you have to build a certain component in a certain congressional district, sometimes Congress chooses the design you have to use

It’s a problem of politics and corruption. When the public supports NASA, they have more autonomy. When NASA gets a blank check, they do more with it - reusable rockets aren’t a new idea, and when they cancelled the shuttle program NASA had brain drain. Some of those people founded spaceX - Elon didn’t start it, he came in when they were getting off the ground, just like with Tesla

That’s not what arbitration is. This doesn’t stop valve from reaching a settlement, it stops them from using fake privately funded bench trials

Binding arbitration means the results are legally binding, non-binding arbitration means a judge needs to approve the arbitration results before it’s final. Sometimes it’s with an off duty judge, sometimes anyone can be the arbiter

Regardless, on one side you have a repeat customer, on the other you have someone who will probably never be back - there’s a built in conflict of interest

Just gonna say, I find this kind of thing adorable

I will relentlessly make fun of them, but it’s endearing and I’ll go off on anyone else making fun of them

That’s it exactly. You’re asking why they didn’t pick a greener car. I’m telling you the problem is that you need to drive across Los Angeles

My mom likes the idea of hybrids, but is scared to even rent an electric car because she’s heard things like “range anxiety” and doesn’t understand the technology. I’ve explained the technology, the availability of charging stations, and the options for charging at home. We ended the conversation with her saying she’s had her car for a decade, and doesn’t see the need for a new car - I told her “absolutely, your car has good fuel efficiency and safety features, there’s no reason to get a new car”

The waters are muddy by design, but the true problem is car centric infrastructure. Electric cars aren’t a solution - they’re a lesser evil. My mom cares - not because she understands, but because she trusts me and my siblings to understand things she doesn’t. We all are much more passionate about health and climate change, she just does the best she knows how. When we all told her “it’s bad to eat meat everyday, let alone every meal”, she listened. If I took a stand and told her to get an electric car, I could wear her down - but driving her car into the ground is better. She recycles less because I’ve taught her what can’t be recycled - recycling is a lie, “if in doubt throw it out” is good public communication

Our choices are limited. People overwhelmingly care - they also have to live their lives. Choices won’t make a dent in climate change - it’s a systematic issue that must be solved systematically

I’d argue it’s the opposite. NFT’s are an actually useful technology - it nicely creates a distributed open leger to track digital ownership. But the technology was basically used to run a scam before anything else - now every use of it has to convince people it’s not a scam before you can get to the idea itself

These people are literally just taking money to release pollution and telling customers that it’s fighting X units of global warming.

They’re not testing the technology - there will be no measurable results at this kind of scale. They’re not perfecting the technology - they’re literally just releasing it out in the desert

This is just a scam - I don’t think it’s a particularly good concept to start with. But even assuming this is a good approach, they’re not boosting the technology, they’re using it illegally and irresponsibly

Think of it like this - companies are contaminating everything with lead, because it’s slightly cheaper for them

People get concerned for good reason

So some companies pay to make lead free products and sell them at a premium. They put it all over the packaging

Other companies see this, and start putting it on their packaging, despite still having an unsafe lead content

All of them do media campaigns and lobby the government, further confusing the issue

People need to buy food, and are working with limited information. They don’t have the time to educate themselves over every purchase - you’d need experts dedicated to testing and compiling the data

So, for the good of everyone (the companies included) we made that. You can go to the grocery store and buy food, confident it doesn’t contain large amounts of lead.

People definitely care, but systematic problems can only be solved systematically

I really don’t get how people so easily accept this. This is an engineering problem, not a law of the universe… How would someone possibly prove something is impossible, particularly while the entire branch of technology is rapidly changing?

We can it climate change because all we know is that the balance of the Holocene is over

It will be less hospitable to humanity because we’ve long lived in ideal conditions. Will it benefit Canada and Russia? I’d argue “no”, because the polar vortex is no joke. Stable climate is good, unpredictable climate is bad

I don’t agree with that at all - that’s how art works. You take ideas and techniques and copy them, adding your own twist in the process. Art is about more than the aesthetic - the backstory is what gives it value. Stealing that is plagiarism, everything else is artistic inspiration… If you add nothing new you’ve made a cheap knockoff, which is very different from plagiarism

Palworld has its own lore, its own type system, its own battle mechanics, and as far as gameplay it’s nothing like Pokemon. All it has in common is many creatures you capture in a ball, with designs largely based on IRL animals and Japanese folklore. They’ve made something new no matter how you slice it

…are you implying that mass gas chambers aren’t an effective way to kill people?

The way I see it, it’s just a form of therapy. People don’t walk in and sit silently, they talk about their problems and get vague reassurance that everything is going to be alright - or occasional advice when they’re way out of bounds

I don’t think it’s unethical to do that, so long as you operate in good faith with good intentions