179
top 38 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] remon@ani.social 7 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

The planet won't be destroyed though. Some areas will just become less habitable for humans. And that can be off-set with money (for example by paying for air conditioning). So your premise is faulty.

[-] redballooon@lemmy.world 1 points 13 minutes ago

Air conditioning alone will not hold off the water from the coast metropolis, where something like 50% of the world population will have to relocate.

[-] BrainBow65@lemmy.world 9 points 6 hours ago

You're not considering larger problems like food supply, displaced peoples, and infrastructure damage. Those things will effect everyone. Sure, with money you can initially buy security, food, and comfort but only to an extent. There's a breaking point where money stops mattering anymore.

[-] krashmo@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

I think it's fair to equate inhabitable with destroyed from a human perspective, especially considering that your assertion that it won't be complete is itself not universally agreed upon.

[-] scytale@piefed.zip 9 points 8 hours ago

That’s why billionaires have houses and bunkers in places that are the last to be affected by climate change. They just need to survive long enough to die of old age while living comfortably.

[-] Cherries@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

It is really funny that billionaires think they will be safe in their bunkers in a post apocalyptic world. Their security teams will be the first to turn on them.

[-] GolfFoxtrotLima@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 hours ago

That’s why we need to make sure that the billionaires starve to death and never come out

[-] MBech@feddit.dk 47 points 12 hours ago

But a select few have so much money, they can ignore the consequenses for the duration of their lives. They don't care what happens after that anyway.

[-] redballooon@lemmy.world 1 points 7 minutes ago

But but ... These are effective altruists who due to their great technology will better theblifes of billions and trillions of people who are not even born yet, or so they say.

[-] diablicja@lemmy.zip 9 points 12 hours ago

Can they, though? I really cannot understand the appeal of spending one's old age in a bunker. Not to mention knowing that your grandkids (most of them have multiple kids and seem to disproportionately care about "legacy") will inherit an uninhabitable planet. You can survive in a bunker, but you cannot, for example, grow all kinds of exotic fruit in a bunker. You cannot take long walks in a bunker (I know they're building huge bunkers but even that will get old after a couple years). Ultimately, they're building life term prisons for themselves and their families, which is somehow fitting even if little consolation.

[-] MBech@feddit.dk 21 points 11 hours ago

They don't give half a shit about their grandkids. They didn't get to where they are by caring about anyone else. They're sociopaths.

They won't really need bunkers to live the rest of their lives. The bunkers they're making are in case of war and short term natural disasters. The surface won't be unlivable in their lifetimes. Again, nothing after their death matters to them.

[-] Kirp123@lemmy.world 6 points 11 hours ago

Most of the billionaires of today won't reach the bunker stage, they will be dead before the surface becomes uninhabitable. Global warming will hit poor countries the hardest first but richer countries will be able to mitigate the effects for longer. The US will be able to mitigate the effects of global warming for much longer than say Afghanistan.

[-] diablicja@lemmy.zip 4 points 11 hours ago

There's already floods, heatwaves and tornadoes. Sure there's much less death and destruction on a bigger scale, but their immediate surroundings won't stay constantly enjoyable much longer. I happen to live in a place that's too cold to comfortably enjoy the outdoors for most of the year - and full of mosquitoes for the remainder. Trust me, it takes a toll on your mental health really fast. I don't think they realise that.

[-] Kirp123@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

Right but billionaires have enough money that they can relocate to places that don't have those issues. Their wealth insulates them from the consequences.

[-] Infernal_pizza@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 hours ago

They have so many houses they can change their immediate surroundings whenever they feel like it

[-] jaykrown@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

The money won't matter.

[-] FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website 45 points 12 hours ago
[-] not@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 10 hours ago

Climate change will not destroy the planet. Climate change will make the planet uninhabitable for humans.
The planet will be here until the sun explodes, humanity will not. I wonder what will replace us.

[-] itkovian@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Hopefully, with something better.

[-] Fallibilist@feddit.uk 3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Climate change will make the planet uninhabitable for humans.

No it won't and not a single credible study claim otherwise.

One group of people claims the entire thing is a hoax and another thinks it's going to make humans go extinct. Classic example of both being wrong.

Why is it that we can't just accept bad things as bad but we need to add color to everything and pretend it's even worse than it actually is. Spreading this kind of misinformation causes an immense amount of pointless anxiety in people.

[-] redballooon@lemmy.world 1 points 9 minutes ago* (last edited 8 minutes ago)

Catastrophes don't need to kill everyone to still be considered catastrophic. D'uh. Remarkable insights.

[-] Azzu@leminal.space 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

I mean... obviously it won't make the whole planet inhabitable, but billions will die when 90% of the planet is inhabitable. The last of which might be wiped out when the world fights over access to those remaining 10%.

[-] Fallibilist@feddit.uk 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

No, those are still completely made up numbers. The estimated number of excess deaths under the worst case scenario range from 7 to 15 million people annually by 2100.

[-] teslekova@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 hours ago

Which scenario are you referring to? IPCC? Because one of the possibilities I've seen is that clouds will stop forming over land. Not to mention ocean acidification. That will kill far more.

[-] Fallibilist@feddit.uk 2 points 5 hours ago

This is just heat/cold related deaths.

[-] Augmented1207@feddit.org 3 points 9 hours ago

Trinosaurs.

[-] fossfene@lemmy.ml 8 points 11 hours ago

When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can’t eat money.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 12 hours ago

It's also meaningless if you spend your life at work.

[-] GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago

The fuck type of showers are you people taking

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 8 hours ago

Getting stoned before a shower is one of life's simple pleasures

[-] OddDeer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 9 hours ago

All the money in the world is meaningless, regardless of climate change.

[-] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 hours ago

"You can't eat money."

[-] Quexotic@infosec.pub 1 points 8 hours ago

Reminds me of the song "the seed" by aurora

[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 hours ago

Climate change isn't going to destroy the planet. The world has been a much warmer place in the (geological) past than it is projected to become, without triggering an apocalypse. There will still be large areas of land that support food production and a pleasant lifestyle, for those with the resources to aquire and hold that land.

[-] plyth@feddit.org 3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Hydrocarbons come from plankton and trees. Life will continue like it did millions of years ago. Uprooted people will just give more power to those in control.

The weather will just make farming output decline, food will be insecure, which gives more power to the people who can own land and defend it against starving masses.

[-] jaykrown@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago

Read about the French revolution.

[-] diablicja@lemmy.zip 3 points 12 hours ago

The French royals didn't have mechadogs to protect them, or social media to distract their subjects. I think they believe themselves safe this time (but I hope they're wrong)

[-] plyth@feddit.org 1 points 11 hours ago

The Bourgeoisie toppled the Aristocracy by using the starving masses. Only the Bourgeoisie is left. Who should organize and finance a revolution?

this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2026
179 points (94.5% liked)

Showerthoughts

44463 readers
1397 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS