We've wiped out 60% of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since the 70s.
I don't know what qualifies as a mass extinction event, but if one hasn't started we can't be far off
Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity
- Thread starter Buster15
- Start date
I don't know what qualifies as a mass extinction event, but if one hasn't started we can't be far off
Yes, so many species have died in a short space of time that by the dictionary definition were in the process of one.
its a lifetime of brainwashing at play
Fair, I thought she was just talking about people.
Not just that, amphibians are on the cusp of dying out. An entire branch on the tree of life!
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
If it helps I think were still at a point where we can save our own skins, were pretty adaptable, but not without drastic action. Really, really drastic.
We went from 2 billion to more than 7 billion humans in less than 90 years. Imagine thinking that wouldn't have an direct effect on the world's climate.
It's a bit strange in that obviously we're having a negative effect on the world's climate, but talking to politicians about climate change is like talking to hookers about the demand for sex.
People want sex and people are always going to want sex. You can tell them that frivolous sex "kills" and you can tell them that having sex is going to prevent them from having children, or will cause God to hate them. That's what devote Christians have done for years and it's spectacularly unsuccessful.
This 16 year old girl saying these well intentioned facts is a well intentioned idiot... But she's a 16 year old girl so if she wasn't an idiot it would be astounding.
Anyone who thinks governments or politicians are going to fix this problem are naive in the extreme. Engineers developing battery technology. Scientists creating cultured beef, entrepreneurs who're tapping into social consciesness by advertising the fact that they are not buying leather from Brazil or timber from Indonesia or fabric from China. That's how we win.
Everything that is negatively effecting the planet is driven by the shit we all buy. You want things to be better? Research what you buy and actively don't buy shit from companies who aren't responsible.
Even ignoring all this... In my view private industry will save the planet. Not because it's morally right, but because when done right it'll be one of the most profitable enterprises we've seen.
People want sex and people are always going to want sex. You can tell them that frivolous sex "kills" and you can tell them that having sex is going to prevent them from having children, or will cause God to hate them. That's what devote Christians have done for years and it's spectacularly unsuccessful.
This 16 year old girl saying these well intentioned facts is a well intentioned idiot... But she's a 16 year old girl so if she wasn't an idiot it would be astounding.
Anyone who thinks governments or politicians are going to fix this problem are naive in the extreme. Engineers developing battery technology. Scientists creating cultured beef, entrepreneurs who're tapping into social consciesness by advertising the fact that they are not buying leather from Brazil or timber from Indonesia or fabric from China. That's how we win.
Everything that is negatively effecting the planet is driven by the shit we all buy. You want things to be better? Research what you buy and actively don't buy shit from companies who aren't responsible.
Even ignoring all this... In my view private industry will save the planet. Not because it's morally right, but because when done right it'll be one of the most profitable enterprises we've seen.
Last edited:
Fair enough, not like any other species can go extinct
Well it's certainly more dramatic if she were only talking about us, which is seemingly her aim based on the rest of said speech.
You've already established that you're not familiar with the basic facts she's discussing. Why not look into what she's saying, instead of making assumptions about what she means and criticising her based on those false assumptions?
Maybe I don't put much stock into what some hysterical child who has been scared and convinced by a lifetime of being told the world is about to end as we know it says and think the hullabaloo surrounding her is absurd and irresponsible. How a child can speak with such authority on any subject at all blows my mind, that should be an instant red flag. There's no shortage of people in the queue to take advantage of her either sadly. She curses a whole generation of people for robbing her childhood but I think she needs to look a little closer to home on that one.
Speaking of red flags...
I agree with most of what you are saying. But the problem is that these governments and politicians are the ones creating policies and laws that govern/regulate these private industries and research. So it's always a good tactic to push them in the direction you want either through imparting knowledge and inspiration by talking to them or pressurizing them through their constituents. Obviously, just doing the first thing would be very naive. But I suppose those talks in public also bring media attention which in turn brings the information into the view of the public and their constituents, thus also serving a way to inform/inspire their constituents to put pressure on these governments.
Not just that, but she’s had a massive effect in mobilising youth and people in general. For all the cynicism, officials do reach when the electorate kicks up enough fuss.
If children weren't the only adults in the room you wouldn't have to listen.
Maybe you could try judging the evidence instead of the person? Most of what she says - including the critical phrase you took issue with - is direct quotations of the science. She does not claim to be an expert, she relays the information from the experts without any commentary. Then she talks about how those conclusions make her feel, and what she would like to happen as a result.
I understand why you would ignore those last two parts - personally, I find them cringe worthy (she's a teenager after all, that's just how it works) and can see the harm it does in creating responses like yours*. However I don't remotely understand why you don't want to read up on the science?
*I assume on the flip side it inspires people, and from the vibes in here I get the impression it appeals more to parents and particularly grandparents, who feel she makes the issues feel more tangible - personally I don't need that
It is how Nazi Germany started.
And when asked why we should listen to her she says that we shouldn't but that we should be listening to the scientists.
True. I haven't seen anything from her that makes her seem like a self-styled expert. She defers to the experts on the important things, but does a reasonably good job of communicating some of the core conclusions from the science. The only bit that is her own is her righteous indignation. That is something that young folks have historically been quite good at communicating to politicians, and years of being ground down by the reality of life doesn't actually help anyone communicate that better.
Only if I wasn't making a joke about that right wing loon saying that Greta looked iike a girl in a Nazi propoganda poster QED
Wait, did you just Godwin this thread, or are we ok?
God... that guy wrote speeches for Reagan. He knows how to structure an argument, and he still says something that will fall apart the moment you scrutinise it. As if the playbook to endear yourself to the left includes: "make use of references to Nazi propaganda".
I detest that twunt.
We could do with some well targetted indignation at this point. We are sleep walking to disaster.
Something is actually happening Reg.
Whole new motion ......
If she is an idiot for speaking truth what does that make the rest of us?
And dismissing her as an idiot on the basis of her being a young girl is just a symptom of what is wrong with the world.
Can't win, so don't try.
I get it, like I say it's a well intentioned message and who knows maybe everything she's done will make a greater impact in the future, nobody can say she hasn't raised huge awareness. Hold your horses a bit, I've not claimed or suggested that I 'don't want to read up on the science'. Not sure what possessed you to include that little jibe in there. I just think she could ease up on the hysterical and authoritative language that she doesn't have much right to use. There's a fine line between activist and doom mongerer.
We all remember the popular 40s character Pippi Jackbooties.
You ever talk to any climate researchers? They’re a gloomy bunch.
And I'd say she has every right to articulate the anger of a generation who have possibly had their futures mortgaged by a culture driven by greed. I sure as shit feels she's speaking for me.
In no way is she overstating the situation as demonstrated by the scientific evidence. Not liking her message doesn't make her wrong or a doom monger. If anything the outcomes if we don't drastically change very soon is likely to be incredibly bad indeed.
We could do with some well targetted indignation at this point. We are sleep walking to disaster.
Something is actually happening Reg.
Whole new motion ......
yeah, definitely one of the more baffling human traits! Your response wasn't to read up on the scientific evidence that she's sharing, using specific scientific classifications like mass extinction, but ridicule her hysterical portrayal of things. When it was pointed out that is not a hysterical characterisation, and instead a direct reference to the science, your follow up was to make more (false) assumptions about what she's trying to say, instead of looking into the scientific evidence for what she is actually saying. It wasn't a broader jibe it was an assessment of you in this moment, based on your own words in this thread.
Why not look at the science and then cite specific things she's saying and demonstrate where she's crossed the line between reasonable conclusions and doom mongering? Why continue to criticise, instead of just getting the same base level of facts first?
Last edited:
A lot of the authoritative language shes using are direct quotes from research reports. Or pretty well defined terms like mass extinction. The science shes quoting is pretty bullet proof, its not doom mongering. Thats why people are crying about being lectured by a teenager - they have no better, more relevant objections.
Any reports on the amphibians extinction? Someone tell Park Ji Sung to stop making frog shakes.
if i was an amphibian i would simply have lots of sex
Now I wish I was an amphibian.
Better hurry as you are likely to be extinct by about a week on Thursday.
Nah. She is spot on. We are a bunch of cnuts who have pawned the planets future to buy iPhones.
By the time private industry realises than making the world an unihabitable wasteland will dampen enthusism for retail spending and damage profits we will be irrevocably fecked.
Just saw it again on TV. She's absolutely fallen to bits. There's no place for that. Her parents have failed her nobody else. If everyone acted the way she did we all might as well get it over with and kill ourselves now as there is simply no hope in anything and nothing to live for.
"You have stolen my dreams and my childhood" Jesus Christ get a grip, take this young girl away from the limelight before it's too late.
Maybe I'm just not blessed to be with 'the science' or too stoopid to understand it durr but you have to be more optimistic than that.
I actually agree with that, when you've been through war and survived it's hard to take someone who is actually fortunate enough to live in a 1st world country and not know about real poverty and suffering say "you've stole my childhood" just chin up and be more optimistic.
yes human kind needs to preserve the environment but let's not make our kids suffer emotionally because of it just yet.