Doomist or realist? Meet the scientist who says the climate collapse has already begun
Doomist or realist? Meet the scientist who says the climate collapse has already begun
Jem Bendell was made famous by his paper Deep Adaptation, in which he argued that climate collapse was inevitable. Now he says it has already begun.
Permanently Deleted
I.e. Liberals.
They might be but i'd rather have them then "too many (brown) ppl caused climate change" ecofash losers.
No shit, huh? Color me shocked. I haven't noticed any unpredictable, extreme, weather events. I totally didn't get caught in a tornado FOUR YEARS AGO in a place that has never had a tornado.
I remember when i went to school on skies. I haven't really seen snow in over 10 years. Normal stuff.
Tbf, this guy (Jem Bendell) was saying 5 years ago that civilization could be gone by 2025 due to a climate apocalypse that is now too late to avoid. There's a lot to criticize about what he has said, but no one can claim that he doesn't know how bad climate change is, has been, or how bad it might get. For the most part he's considered the epitome of climate alarmism.
It's ironic that the people in the article are decrying "doomism" as an excuse to give up and do nothing are juxtaposed against a guy who quit his job and moved to Bali to start a permaculture operation (not sure how well that would work as a universal solution, but good on him). The crime in the eyes of the anti-doomer isn't giving up, it's opting out of the idea that we can solve climate change by running on our little hamster wheels harder.
I remember reading over a decade ago that meteorologists and climate researchers gave up on us collectively solving the problem and were deciding to move to the most resilient territories and planning to live off grid.
People like to complain about doomers while simultaneously doing nothing about the doom in the world.
So to lower the amount of doom, you would need to make changes right? And how do we make said change?
IMO, the place to start is state level electoral reform. First Past The Post voting artificially limits our choices in the voting booth, restricting the competition in the electoral process. The kind of radical change we need will not come while we have our hands in these two handcuffs. What incentive do these two political parties have to make said change when they know the other option in the voting booth is even further away from what you really want? There is none.
We should push our political parties harder, and that means threatening their jobs with new political parties with fresh ideas. Put the fear back into our politicians lives through a more representative voting system. There should be no "safe seats", kamala Harris should debate someone other then trump.
Debating trump, the world's easiest job.
20 years from now... lol
These kinds of people who love to spread fear with bs should be banned from public opinion. Then again, I would prefer constant mocking and trolling of people after they've been caught lying to the public with fear mongering bs.
