Asklemmy

43892 readers

929 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

137

Where do you realistically expect the world to be in terms of meeting the 2050 climate goals? (lemmy.sdf.org)

submitted 1 year ago by LiamMayfair@lemmy.sdf.org to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

88 comments fedilink hide all child comments

With evidence mounting on the failure to limit global warming to 1.5C, do you think global carbon emissions will be low enough by 2050 to at least avoid the most catastrophic climate change doomsday scenarios forecast by the turn of the century?

I am somewhat hopeful most developed countries will get there but I wonder if developing countries will have the ability and inclination to buy into it as well.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] qwamqwamqwam@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It is very important to understand that the most apocalyptic visions of a climate change future are unlikely. Credible prognoses of the future predict that the world will suffer, and development will slow, but overall humanity will survive and even continue to grow.

I say this not to deny the effects of climate change, but because I sincerely believe that people use apocalyptic predictions to justify slacktivism. By deciding that the world is doomed, and they will go extinct regardless of what they do, people absolve themselves of their responsibility to agitate (including violently) for change. The world is genuinely unrecognizable compared to even 10 years ago, let alone 50. People are far more resilient than the worst predictions give them credit for, and even marginal victories will have real consequences for the future that we will live to see.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I'm one of the people that thinks the world is probably going to shit (mass migration from uninhabitable land, wars over water / farmland etc.) but I don't use that as an excuse to not do anything. My reasoning is that even though I honestly think everything is going to shit, I might be wrong, so the best I can do is plan to go down fighting to make the world better. Either the world burns, and I can say with integrity that I tried my best, or we somehow pull through and prevent the worst prognosis from becoming reality. Either way, slacking is a bad idea.

[–] DrQuint@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Every time I see the optimistic outlook in regards to humanity, I am reminded myself how hard it hinges on a sense of belonging among the "we". I look for the reason for that optimistic attitude and I am expected, no, borderline mandated to feel a patriotic pride for humanity.

I actually don't anymore. My mind change one too many time.

Extremely Controversial Counterpoint: Cruel Pessimism. No, it's not that I don't care anymore alone. I actually want to see humanity suffer now. I tried to fix it, and in return, the world hurt me and I now want it to hurt itself.

YOU live, not "we". I'll have no children, and hopefully die before the worst. Probably not. But whatever. I got not pity and intend to exchange none back.