fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4296 ]

[ SECRET POST #4296 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4296 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Sailor Moon]

__________________________________________________

03.

[My Hero Academia]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Ruby Tandoh from Great British Bake Off series four]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Vanity Fair (TV Mini-Series 2018)]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Jurassic World 2: Fallen Kingdom]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Kim-Joy in The Great British Bake Off (series 9)]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Breakfast on Pluto]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 33 secrets from Secret Submission Post #615.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

UN warns of climate catastrophe but of course offers absolutely no solution to the problem.

Because the only solution is going back to a preindustrial society.

What is this post

There are entire committees and multinational agreements set up to outlining solutions lol. Reducing emissions =/= preindustrial society.

My bad, I've never seen a single news article on those. Only the warnings.

That's probably because we're still in a world where people don't yet agree that it's happening

Including the current governing party of the United States

That's inexcusable.

I want to know HOW we are going to stop using fossil fuels, and I want to know it NOW. Or I am going to assume that no one has an actual answer, there is no actual answer, and we are doomed.

Re: global warming

(Anonymous) - 2018-10-08 22:54 (UTC) - Expand

That's because actual solutions, such as true renewable and safe energy, aren't what the top 1% have invested in and thus they can't stay rich off of it.

The hell you haven’t seen articles about solutions. Every time you read an article about the price of solar and wind installations dropping, motor companies throwing muscle behind EV research and autonomous fleets, and proposals for zoning reform, those are articles about solutions. They aren’t labeled as such, though. Why? For the same reason a lot of vegan foods don’t have the green V: describing a technological advancement as a solution to a problem turns off readers who don’t believe/don’t want to believe the problem exists.

That's because everyone already knows what the solutions are.

Strict birth control.
You can't tell anyone not to have children, you racist fascist!

Cutting down on spending and polluting.
But, but, economy. Those other countries pollute a lot more, so we don't have to do anything if they don't do it first.

Stopping migration to fragile areas, especially forests.
Those are human lives! You can't stop anyone from going where they want!

We are fucked.

2 of those things are much less important than the 3rd

Sorry, but RE: that first one. You know exactly who'd be put on the strictest of birth control and you're damn naive if you think it wouldn't end up like that.

Birth control really isn't a solution. Countries that use the largest percentage of resources (generally wealthiest) don't have that many kids. It's poorer countries that have tons of kids, but they still use just a fraction of the world's resources.

Not sure what context the third one comes from. National parks, etc. are recognized even in developing countries, but it's true that lots of deforestation happens when poorer people don't have another viable industry. But of course, it's big companies paying for that stuff.

Those kids in the poor countries want to consume as much as the people in the richer countries, and this should be addressed before they really do consume as much, since just telling them "no, we can, but you can't" isn't going to work.

Not to mention that having a large amount of young people with no prospects tends to lead to war sooner rather than later.

putting the burden of changing primarily or exclusively on the developing world is fucked up as hell

Re: global warming

(Anonymous) - 2018-10-08 23:33 (UTC) - Expand

Re: global warming

(Anonymous) - 2018-10-08 23:52 (UTC) - Expand

Free birth control and destigmatizing abortions and adoption seems like a good start, but I don't know. People are selfish and want their own babies.

We can and should do all of those things, but it's hard to tell whether that's what OP has in mind by "strict birth control"

OP here. I would prefer really strict control. I think China had the right idea with the one child policy and it should be adopted worldwide. After population has fallen to a more sustainable level (maybe 1960's level), this rule can be relaxed.

Re: global warming

(Anonymous) - 2018-10-08 23:22 (UTC) - Expand

Re: global warming

(Anonymous) - 2018-10-08 23:27 (UTC) - Expand

Re: global warming

(Anonymous) - 2018-10-08 23:40 (UTC) - Expand

Re: global warming

(Anonymous) - 2018-10-08 23:48 (UTC) - Expand

Re: global warming

(Anonymous) - 2018-10-09 00:38 (UTC) - Expand

Re: global warming

(Anonymous) - 2018-10-09 01:12 (UTC) - Expand

It's not "selfish" to want to have a baby. Adoption is an extremely long, arduous, and expensive process that can often end up in heartbreak and disappointment.

Re: global warming

(Anonymous) - 2018-10-09 03:30 (UTC) - Expand

The majority of people don't want a lot of babies when they a) have the choice to prevent pregnancy in the first place, b) know most of the babies they have will survive, c) aren't dependent on their kids for unpaid labor or their only way to survive when they are old, and d) have the option of living fairly cushy lives if they don't have so many kids to drain their resources (as opposed to situations where a cushy life is not an option regardless).

So, I'm not really worried about people choosing to have lots of babies, because most won't, even if most people who want kids probably want at least one baby of their own. The global birth rate has been dropping for years. The global population is only still rising because of previous population surges - if you have a lot of women of childbearing age, then you will get a lot of babies out of them even if the average number of children per woman is low. E.g. there are lots of Millennials because there are lots of Boomers, even though Boomer women averaged fewer children than their mothers.

I think more widely and easily available birth control without wrapping it up in politics and stigma is a major fix-it. It would also be nice to have an option for men that is akin to the pill/shot or an IUD - not permanent, but not single-use like a condom. Also, working to decrease infant/childhood mortality rates and improve the health and welfare of vulnerable populations in general, in addition to just being a good thing all around, would also help reduce the birth rate.

First of all, how is migration qua migration assumed to be a net negative for climate?

Second, if human lives don't matter, why shouldn't we reduce the population by killing people?

If people move to an area where they consume significantly more than in their previous place of living, it's a net negative for climate.

Re: global warming

(Anonymous) - 2018-10-08 23:52 (UTC) - Expand

What year do you think the third world war will break out? 2036, if I'm feeling generous.

Yeah, I was thinking mid to late 2020s myself.

It's already been going on for years, but no-one really cares because it isn't happening in western countries.

If it isn't happening in western countries, it's not a world war.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only