Explain that, science nerds! - eviltoast
  • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    “actually, personal water consumption is a factor. . .”

    If one is honest and looks at the data, personal scale water consumption is nearly meaningless.

    Back to the main point though, I do not intend at all to brush off the destruction of habitats capable of supporting complex life but to be clear about the stakes. The world will continue to exist without us - we’re not that special. If we don’t work to stop a handful of sociopaths from rendering the world incapable of supporting human life, we’re screwed.

    • Optional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Can you be more specific about “the world” and “continuing to exist” because in all of these comments it seems like people think it’s easily going to return to some mythical Edenic paradise, just give it a few hundred years, and - no.

      • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Being more specific, I basically mean object permanence. It won’t cease to exist without humans. Even that mythical Edenic paradise is an anthropocentric concept. Nothing like that existed for the majority of the earth’s history, nor did anything like it exist in most regions of the planet. Most known life is optimized for environments that are not particularly human-safe.

        • Optional@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I thought evidence existed that most of the earth was tropical, for lack of a better word, in . . dinosaur . . . times?

          Hey mon, that sounds irie for I an I. Eh, hold the dinosaurs.