• @Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    18
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    104?

    Laughs in South West American.

    But seriously. Can we just not? I’d like to actually have a retirement. Or nanobot immortality. Why can’t we live in the cool timeline?

    • rentar42
      link
      fedilink
      174 months ago

      Somewhere a monkey paw finger curls and you’re moved to the timeline where the world is in a nuclear winter …

      • @Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        64 months ago

        C’mon, at least get weird with it. Nuclear winter is so cliche, why not have the planet start to slowly de-orbit the sun?

      • @Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -14 months ago

        C’mon, at least get weird with it. Nuclear winter is so cliche, why not have the planet start to slowly de-orbit the sun?

      • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        14 months ago

        I don’t believe that. If this is the best timeline then we deserve everything mother nature is going to give us.

        • JohnEdwa
          link
          fedilink
          English
          34 months ago

          We haven’t exactly reached this state because of some big, singular fluke nobody could have predicted, there hasn’t been some asteroid impact or super volcano eruption that suddenly messed the planet up.
          Humanity as has known about the issues of pollution and climate change for over a hundred years, known how dire the situation has been for decades, and has still done mostly nothing productive to end up here.

          It would have taken a few generations of people all making massive changes willingly to fix this, but almost none of us did. I think we just can’t care enough about the future when there is now and here to experience, and it’s just finally the “find out” phase after the “fuck around”.

          • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            44 months ago

            Yeah, just one thing though. We could have avoided it through regulating emissions better. The idea that the people all had to make the individual choice is corporate propaganda.

            • JohnEdwa
              link
              fedilink
              English
              3
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              If it was that easy more governments would have political parties that were fighting for all of that in power, most of the world does have some sort of democracy where the people get to choose. But it’s extremely rare, because people don’t vote for them as all the things that need to be done right now are really annoying. Fewer cars, more smelly public transport, expensive green energy, higher taxes, no cheap flights to holidays?!
              This climate change thing prolly isn’t such a bad thing, and if it is, we can do it later, and if we don’t who cares, we are gonna be dead anyway.

              Here in Finland, the Greens lost 7 seats dropping to just 13 out of 200 in last years election, for example. Who won? The right-wing populists who are reducing the tax on petrol and trying to increase taxes on electric cars, for example. Yay…

              • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                24 months ago

                Oh, I’m not saying the people don’t have a part. But the idea that everyone needs to reduce their personal carbon footprint is ridiculous. And part of why green parties have trouble getting votes. Corporations run commercials that insinuate they’ve solved climate change.

    • Optional
      link
      fedilink
      English
      54 months ago

      At 80% humidity? That’s a big negatori, rubber duck.