World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Personally I'm of the opinion that tipping points should not be a focus. I think people have reached a level of fear saturation, and no more fear can influence the system, it just precipitates right back out. While you can replace one fear with another, this can be inoculated against with faith, which is fairly accessible and common.
I think we need to actually take a page from Biden here, and stop pumping fear and consequences, and start pumping hope. Our stick is so waved the thing is fraying, but our carrots are underutilized.
Guys like Elon Musk, of all fucking people, are beating us in the hope dept. How the fuck did that happen?
Because the truth has limits on how hopeful and how simple it can be. Whereas the lies of billionaires have no such limitations.
I agree with your point that the messaging isn't working. But pushing hope without radical reform of our current systems is basically just trying to diffuse the reaction to the facts without actually changing the facts leading to the reaction.
Agreed. But I think we need to focus our attention away from actual solutions to major problems, and onto minor solutions to minor problems, that will give us a footing for actually being able to take steps forward again.
We need to fight the battle right in front of our faces, instead of focusing on our more standard long-term views. Otherwise we're going to be strategically and tactically outmaneuvered by people that follow fewer rules than we do.
It's a feasibility and priorities consideration.
The problem with that being that the "minor solutions" aren't really solving the problem. We've been doing "minor solutions" for many years now, and we have only accelerated in our destruction of the environment.
We need drastic change. Failing some deus-ex-machina-esque invention that quickly and cheaply solves the issue with no sacrifice needed, then we have to be demanding radical change. If that isn't possible, our other option is to just fail and die.
In my opinion, this position requires some cherry picking to avoid evidence of times when different things have improved over the past few decades.
In our current unprecedented circumstances, drastic change on a short timescale is going to require one of two things: the suspension of our democracy, or wide-scale bloodshed. Neither of these is actually particularly likely to result in positive change either.
The problem is there may not be survival for all of us at the end of this tunnel. But only one way might work in time, and that's the one we've been using for a couple centuries and seen okayish results with.
Otherwise you're asking for authority, and putting all your trust in it. That has like, a 5% of working or something, and a 95% of the authority being co-opted by fascists in the near future. It's a rock and a hard place. Catch 22. We've been maneuvered into this situation, very cleverly. By fucking McConnell, mainly, but whatever. That idiot has to live with his party now.
edit for wording
Quite the opposite. The times when we have made improvements have come precisely because we have made the sorts of decisive changes that we needed to make, that we are currently pretending are impossible.
We actually solved the issue with the ozone layer, precisely because we took action and passed regulation banning their usage, despite the objections of businesses.
Same thing with leaded petrol. We took decisive action and addressed the problem at a systemic level, rather than just softly appealing for people to make the "right choice uwu".
I agree that unrest seems basically inevitable. Because the people with the power to make the changes required have shown us in no uncertain terms that they never make the changes required.
So I'm not sure why continuing to pander to those delusions with half-measures is preferable.
I'm hoping change can be accomplished through general strikes and direct action. So that widespread bloodshed can be avoided.
Oh. So you are completely insane. Because we absolutely have not been seeing okayish results.
I suppose it depends on what you consider "okayish". You sound to me like a utopian, which I admire, but cannot personally accept.
At any rate, if you look out at our world and see only disaster, that's a function of your news feed, not reality. It's just not that black and white.
I don't only see disaster. But I do see a specific problem, with a very obvious answer, that continues to get worse and worse with catastrophic future consequences. A problem that we continuously refuse to address in a meaningful manner.
I said this to someone else, we need to move forward. Prevention is now impossible without using military force to achieve our goals, which we cannot do, being bound by ethics. We cannot get Modi to cut his emissions, he doesn't particularly like us. And his right-leaning style is very popular in India.
We're onto limiting worsening, mitigation, and maybe someday reversal? We lost prevention though, time to move on.
You're responding to a point I didn't make. Even mitigation requires the drastic action you are arguing is impossible.
But also, no, y'all don't get to slow-breakup this.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
slow-breakup
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I'm not going to watch a whole youtube video just to pick up on the latest lingo.
No, mitigation does not require "drastic" action, fortunately. We've significantly mitigated it already, concerning our own emissions, and can do so further.
Do you have an idea that might mitigate it overseas, or change domestic politics enough to speed things up here? I don't think nonviolent protest is going to do it, there's not enough of us willing to do so.
Deny it's happening, then claim we can't change anything once it's happened. The moment where we could do something about it is skipped over.
Like you are doing now.
What world do you live on? Certainly not the one the rest of us do. Our emissions have only been increasing.
Yes we require drastic action. In fact we required drastic action decades ago. Now we require radical action.
First and foremost, stop pointing your finger overseas. It is nothing but a distraction, a convenient excuse to not do what needs to be done domestically because "oh but China and India".
Secondly, investment in equipping developing nations with clean energy infrastructure can help.
Ultimately it is going to have to come down to protest.
I am hoping non-violent methods, such as general strikes and direct action will be enough.
But that does require solidarity, motivation, and mutual aid.
Get your facts straight first, otherwise it becomes fully apparent you're really just trying to obfuscate the entire issue.
US emissions over time:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Trump isn't in charge anymore. If you think some tampering makes a source unreliable on everything else too, then you must be a genuine anarchist that literally believes nothing...?
World is just more complicated than that, and the feds can swing in whatever direction they want, depending on who's giving the orders.
Lumping it all together as some USGOV thing is just typical conspiracy stuff though. Details are critically important in real life.
edit: Ah ha, tried to sneak a stealth edit past me? Cute, but I know the tricks. Biden appointees aren't necessary. Simply oversight that the science underpinning the results has been correctly performed. Anyone can perform science properly, it doesn't matter what "side" they're on.
edit2: Here's another source, though they only have data until 2021, which will still have covid mucking up the data. But still some interesting stuff in here:
https://www.climatewatchdata.org/countries/USA?end_year=2020&start_year=1990
Uhhh....
That's fair. We try though, just not all of us.
Agreed. Everyone that cares already knows. Those that don't care aren't listening.
It's time to write about workable solutions for those who care. What we can do to prepare, what we can do to mitigate, and what we can do to survive in this new world coming our way.
We need organization and action of the masses commensurate with the danger. That would give me some hope for once.
Snigger
Are we supposed to be really excited about one of our apocalypse options?
You should check out the history of apocalypse forecasting. It's almost as amusing as the long history of "kids these days" complaints.
Both are bullshit, however. People just like whining and fantasizing about things they don't like being punished.
Did those apocalypse forecasts have a hundred years of scientific data backing it up?
In some cases, though the standards of "scientific evidence" were much, much lower back in the day. The scientific method, is afterall, an approach by which we try to refine our stuff over time.
But the key here is apocalypse. Nothing lasts forever, no kingdom or country will, including ours. But people will remain. Societies will remain. The biosphere isn't going anywhere, unless you're thinking in religious terms.
It's not an end of us all, though it will create massive upheaval if we don't start on mitigation soon.
Turns out suicide is difficult, who knew? Great suggestion though, very constructive.
World saved, we can just ignore all our problems.
If you want to pump out hope, then get the politicians and voters to actually do something. And by something I mean actual proper actions and not just some band aid solutions that barely get us below 3 degrees. So far I see absolutely fucking nothing.
Oh, it's too late to stop it. What, you gonna propose we invade India and halt their emissions? Or ask Modi to be a nice guy?
It's time for prevention of worsening+mitigation.
Why look towards developing countries?
Are you proposing that they shouldn't reach the same living standards as us? Or should we lower our living standards to match theirs?
I'm proposing we do not attempt to control their destinies. That means we cannot control their carbon. This in turn means that whether severe climate change happens or not is out of the power of the west to control. It is Modi's decision to make. We can only observe, mostly helplessly.
So, we need to focus on things we can help with.
Unless you know of something we can do to influence overseas carbon that I don't. An embargo perhaps? Blockade maybe?
Yeah, no, sorry. Come back when our glorious West is actually climate neutral before pointing fingers towards countries that are still developing. This is ridiculously stupid.
One does not have to be without fault, to see and criticize it in others. Otherwise it becomes too easy to just repeats the same mistakes. This is actually wisdom, not stupidity, where we try to learn from history. Even other people's history.
No. It's stupid to expect countries to halt their development while we sit on our comfortable asses. Especially since it is our living standards that brought us into this mess.
I'm not asking anyone to halt their development. I'm asking you, you specifically, to realize that if they don't, then global warming happens. So, global warming is gonna happen. We no longer have control, it's not our choice to make.
So, onto the next problem.
You've flipped flopped between we don't need to take drastic action, and no action we can take can help.
Conveniently, both means you get to ignore arguments to actually do something to mitigate the damage.
Which really is your entire motivation.
Really I'm arguing a position directly in the middle. Extremely drastic action of the kind that would be effective is no longer feasible. No action is unacceptable, as it would get much, much worse.
Which is why I'm arguing for some action, but an overall understanding that 1.5 C warming is toast, and 2.0 C might be around the corner, so we need to begin transitioning more attention and resources towards mitigation and reversal. For instance, seas are rising. We probably do have a responsibility to the people that are already being displaced.
Since we have limited power, we should pursue limited methods of prevention, basically. I think we should not overly pressure India in particular, because it wouldn't budge Modi, and they're feasting on cheap Russian fossil fuels. We can and should work towards carbon neutral ourselves, quickly. But we shouldn't think we can control the rest of the world somehow, and make them do it too. That means things are gonna get hot.
To whom?