Anyone who denies it at this point is either living under a rock or has ulterior motives.
i still think people vastly undersestimate the severity. I think most people don’t know how tipping points work and what the actual reasons are to call this a climate emergency.
so i assume most people upvoting the above post would think of examples of this emergency in recent weather extremes but not of how some tipping points might be tipp over and result in a feedback loop. and these are two vastly different things.
like, it is a much more severe emergency when you have only maybe 10-20 years to react and radically change things until you can’t stop feedback loops. 10-20 years is very short in todays world
Yes, agree, I’m glad Scientific American is being forthright about this. Is it on topic for !technology@lemmy.ml? I was sort of hoping Lemmy wouldn’t have the same issue as reddit where people just upvote stuff they agree with, even if it’s only tangentially related to the sub.
I know climate change is related to everything, but still…
the connection to techonology is that climate emergency requires to radically change the way we use technology.
The computer i write this text on is built with rare metals and was flown around the earth a few times to create its parts before it reached its final destinantion, my house. Flying is producing CO2 and it is one of the major causes of climate emergency, especially when you consider what is necessary to survive and what not. Many people on this earth don’t fly around the earth much but still live a happy life.
The way modern technology is promoted and consumed is unhealthy for our climate by throwing resources away and not repairing stuff. Fighting for a right to repair is good but i think it is not good enough as long as apple can still sell anything, because they won’t ever create a good repairable product. (and to be honest, another reason for posting that here is: i was hoping to create attention on the matter and the technology sub is more popular.)
I know but, following this logic, this article would be on topic for !cooking@lemmy.ml since we need to reduce GHG emissions from agriculture, and !gaming@lemmy.ml, since graphics cards are using more and more power each generation, etc.
An article specifically about the greenhouse impact of proof-of-work cryptocurrencies, or a technological innovation to help fight climate change - that’s relevant in my eyes. But this article is really stretching it.
yes, but my post here is not driven by pure logic. It is driven by caring about my future, it is driven by sadness about the current progress towards justice in this world and the anger about the ignorance of our society. the anger that still in 2021 we haven’t removed leftovers from colonialism and we still exploit poor people and nature without much change.
i am sure in 50 years you will forget about your discussions regarding where to post some article on the internet, but maybe you will remember your thoughts and discussions about climate change? because in 50 years you probably can’t stop feedback loops so it won’t matter anymore what you do and discuss?
Keeping communities on topic is important, regardless of your ‘priorities’. Off-topic content is bound to only be ignored and pushed aside, it can also cause the communities it’s posted in to become dejected. As well, the adverse can happen, like it did on Reddit. Posts completely unrelated to the topic of the subreddit get upvoted because Redditors stopped caring what subreddits were for, and certain posting topics became karma farms - once again not cared about for the content itself, but for what it gives the poster.
This should be posted in one of the environmental communities, rather than in the technology one. Not only would it do better attention-wise, but it also keeps Lemmy as a whole on topic.
but i have given a reasonable argument why this link is ontopic? its not that i have posted it on the chess subreddit. that would be offtopic and i wouldn’t do that because it would make not much sense.
Not only would it do better attention-wise, but it also keeps Lemmy as a whole on topic.
this link was posted to the technology and the climate crisis community at the same time, but the technology post has 11 points while the one in the climate crisis community has 3. in the climate crisis community, this is nothing new AND it has only received 3 upvotes.
This post has 2 votes and 1 downvote (or three votes in total), the one in the climate crisis community has 5 points total with no downvotes. I have no idea where you got your numbers, because the numbers I see only back up my statement, the post did better by two (technically three, because downvote) votes on the community dedicated to talking about climate change.
Fair enough, I can’t fault your motivation.
maybe you could find a more popular version of something like this “The impact of technologies on the environment” [1] which includes technology specific concerns like:
- Electrical Energy production
- Digital coin mining
- Electronic devices production and its impact
- Renewable energies
