If not now, when?

in ecotrain •  8 months ago 

image.png

image.png

I'm really disappointed to see a post like this on Steemit with support from whale accounts.

When? When is the right time to react?

Does anyone actually think nothing should be done about it? It's already clear that people will die from the effects of climate change. Why should there not be more funding about this topic? Why shouldn't the everyday citizen not be concerned about this?

We already know what increasing CO2 levels do. That's not a forecast. It increases temperature on the Earth. The coral reefs are currently dying. This is not a forecast. No we shouldn't consider "pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere".

When do you want to be concerned about the environment. When it's destroyed? Why can we not act preemptively. Ecosystems are very complex and the problems can compound creating problems that move at an exponential speed. Once certain parts of an ecosystem are destroyed it's likely they will not be able to recovered anymore. Even if you do not value them intrinsically they undoubtedly have economic value.

I understand that predictions and forecasting are off. I don't think the way the narrative is presented as a doomsday or restrictive actions like banning meat are the right answer, but how can you ignore this problem and deny facts?

The way the world is run is not sustainable. That's just a fact. If you are believer in human ingenuity than you should support the side of the environmental movement that believes tech will be able to fix these problems and encourage projects that are working on solutions. Don't make this some political conspiracy theory. I'm understanding of people who do not like the narrative that is pushed by Greta Thunberg. There's not just one environmental movement and one ideology.

However, at the end of the day the goal is to control the damage and leave the world better than we found it. Have some compassion for the future generations and the poor of the world who will be the first to experience these effects.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  
  ·  8 months ago (edited)

Nobody is going to die because of climate change, it has happened repeatedly throughout our existence. People can live in extreme climates, from the icy north to the scorching deserts. They're not dying are they? Understand that and you'll understand the lies being shoved in the population's throat.

We already know what increasing CO2 levels do

CO2 is necessary for plant life, without CO2, plants would die, and so would you. Currently we're at the lowest CO2 levels in the history of this planet. We need CO2 to go UP, not down. Please take some time to learn about that before you demonize CO2.

  ·  8 months ago (edited)Reveal Comment

CO2 and temperature are not the main causes of coral reefs decline.

Human impact on coral reefs is significant. Coral reefs are dying around the world. Damaging activities include coral mining, pollution (organic and non-organic), overfishing, blast fishing, the digging of canals and access into islands and bays. Other dangers include disease, destructive fishing practices and warming oceans. Factors that affect coral reefs include the ocean's role as a carbon dioxide sink, atmospheric changes, ultraviolet light, ocean acidification, viruses, impacts of dust storms carrying agents to far-flung reefs, pollutants, algal blooms and others. Reefs are threatened well beyond coastal areas. Climate change, such as warming temperatures, causes coral bleaching, which if severe kills the coral.

Nearly all of those are related to CO2 and temperature: warming oceans, ocean's role as a carbon dioxide sink, atmospheric changes, ocean acidification, viruses, pollutants, algal blooms, coral bleaching

  ·  8 months ago Reveal Comment
  ·  8 months ago Reveal Comment
  ·  8 months ago (edited)

Pollution causes health issues, not the climate.

You advocated to pollute the air with more CO2 and now you're backtracking.

At least I budged you a bit!

CO2 is not pollution dude, it's a natural molecule that's required for life growth.

Excess CO2 emissions often contain other pollutants. Did you really not know that?

By all means, I'm all for removing toxic pollutants (and we have the technology to do it), whether they're mixed with CO2 or otherwise.

So then you agree that we need to do something about the problems with the climate?

Nah let's make fun of the first person to actually bring a lot of attention to the issue who has aspergers and say it's all a political move and ignore the facts and how most people in power are not giving a single fuck to making a change about it.

You're a fool and you fell exactly for the trap they laid. They put up a girl with mental illness so whenever someone criticizes her, they can whip out the mental card. So, we should let her go unchallenged because of she's sick and out of pity? People with illness should be getting medical help, not being thrown in the spotlight. Keep playing identity politics.

  ·  8 months ago (edited)

No I've been aware of the issue way before Greta but nothing was being done about it and no one was able to get it the right attention, so if this is what works then so be it. I couldn't give more of a shit about who or how, all I care is that the greedy 1%ers who are nearing the end of their corrupted life surrounded and in control of the biggest scam we call money get fucked and have to draw back the profits so they won't jeopardize the future well being of the planet.

Also, go fuck yourself.

  ·  8 months ago (edited)

If it wasn't getting attention that's because it's a flawed theory. The socialist agenda constantly targeting the 1% isn't going to solve anything. Sure, try a revolution, get the 1%'s money, you think it will save you from doomsday? Erratic thinking for an erratic generation.
Also, go fuck yourself.

Oh yeah, cause the right and important things are surely getting enough attention in this day and age with clickbait and fake news.

At least I didn't start out the conversation by calling someone a fool cause you disagree with their stance, asshole.

Feel the love.

Things your kids will never say to you?

get the 1%'s money, you think it will save you from doomsday? Erratic thinking for an erratic generation.

It's not about getting their money, it's about pulling back on how they are making more for their greed and raping the planet while doing it. What kind of other generation do you think I belong to, are you born in the 70s?

This person is all strawman arguments and no substance. He read a script and follows that script to the letter. When you push him off the script, he gives up and does something else. I've had these same interactions with this guy like 10 times now.

Maybe he's a bot.

He's the product of right wing brainwashing, thinking that killing millions of people is fine just because a little girl (one of many millions of activists) said something on TV.

It's grotesque behavior.

If you think asperger's is a mental illness then you need to do a lot more research, dude.

  ·  8 months ago (edited)

What's your point exactly?

Asperger syndrome (AS), also known as Asperger's, is a developmental disorder characterised by significant difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests.

That's a mental illness. What do you keep wasting my time? Also, communism is a mental illness, it causes people to make stupid comments.

Again, not a mental illness.

Posted using Partiko Android

If it's not a mental illness (I don't know what is...) then great, she's a fine and healthy girl. Don't bring up Asperger's when you're trying to defend her.

But no one does that, its a strawman

Posted using Partiko Android

Disorders are not illnesses. Illness means it detracts from your life, disorder means your life experience is different.

Words arent this hard, kid.

Posted using Partiko Android

well, shit if they can use the mental illness card to protect themselves from any counter argument, then I will play the race card.

My ancestors are of Yoruban and Native American heritage. Remember the people that greeted Columbus and paid for it with genocide?

Challenge anything I say and you’re a racist.

That’s how dumb this feigned outrage is.

These people expect to be unchallenged no matter what unproven or disproven things come out of their mouth.

Are you talking about me or them? lol

I’m talking to everyone who uses a guilt card to support an argument.

Let it stand on it’s own merit!

Or I can play the disenfranchised Latino card and call you racist...

See how it works?

  ·  8 months ago Reveal Comment

The DSM-V categorizes Asperger's as a developmental disorder, not an illness. Just for reference. Thinking of yourself as ill isn't a good frame of mind.

But other than that, I agree. It's sad how people think anything other than "normal" is somehow worthy of mockery and attacks. It's disgusting.

The ableism of these people is whats truly disgusting.

Posted using Partiko Android

I'm understanding of people who do not like the narrative that is pushed by Greta Thunberg.

Greta is not pushing any narrative at all. Her parents are.

Most likely her parents and other people have a lot of influence over her since she is just 16 and leading a global movement.

I'm really not trying to focus on Greta in the post. The main point is about the incorrect information in the video about CO2 and the idea that because it's not possible to forecast precisely we shouldn't do anything.

It’s just that when people use “the science is settled,” as an argument, I doubt very much that a scientist is speaking. The demographic of people who claim that the science is settled tends to still doubt that the science is settled in other areas, say, like the biological definitions of gender.

So why is this science settled and not that? Because “the science is settled” is not a scientific argument.

There is a scientific consensus on this issue. Why not be proactive on these issues? It's the best information we have based on 40 years of research.

Wrong, there's no scientific concensus on climate change. There's plenty of scientifc studies and analyses that debunk every element of the climate change movement. Of course, main stream media doesn't broadcast them because it's a one-sided discussion.

when you are so addicted to the strawman you think everyone who isn't you watches mainstream media

Because the institutions that abdicated their role in preventing this situation are now asking us to do something.

How did they abdicate their role? I don't think they ever had enough power to change it on their own. You need the people to make a difference.

In the US, they have this document called The Constitution. The courts are supposed to uphold it. One of the things that The Constitution, and thus the courts, should protect is "private property." It is my contention that when the courts failed to protect "private property rights," it lead to this situation we're now in.

It would be my preference to return to protecting private property as a means to protect "the environment." Either by going back to the doctrine that The Constitution has laid out, or by switching to a more effective system.

In the meantime, any system that fails to protect private property in order to save the environment is immoral, or at best, the means justifying the ends.

  ·  8 months ago Reveal Comment
  ·  8 months ago Reveal Comment

No they aren't? If they were, they would do something. They aren't, that's why people are angry and bringing attention to it. You have no clue what you're talking about, and that's the core issue here.

Has it really become necessary to insult already?

When you support the deaths of millions of people, don't expect civility.

Also, I didn't even insult you there, snowflake.

Not an argument, not funny. Just gross and stupid.

Posted using Partiko Android

  ·  8 months ago (edited)

i have to agree with the fact that science is never settled, because we are always learning more about our world. yet at the same time I agree with schubes.

first off, just because science is never settled does not mean that the facts we have are wrong. it just means that we dont know enough to interpret them like they were a math equation. there are too many variables. earth is a complex ecosystem that we might NEVER fully understand, but because you think that we dont know everything we should just do nothing? I think this is more about people not wanting to admit to the problem because then they would have to look at how to solve it. So sure, deny the elephant in the living room exists.

we are wasting a whole lot of energy attacking a girl and shame blaming her, instead of thinking about her actual message: our planet is having issues. im scared and angry no one is doing anything

some people think we can just "adjust" to climate change, and maybe we can. but at what cost? it will come at the cost of human lives, food crops, ecosystems and the cost of rebuilding infrastructure. is it more expensive to adapt or to prevent?

do we really need to focus on the minutia of political stupidity? everyone is sidetracking to how greta is such a tool, or how they disagree about one aspect of science (when they arent scientists themselves) instead of addressing the issues.

is it debatable that CO2 in the atmosphere has risen alarmingly? (no it isnt debatable. just because you don't want to believe the facts that 90% of scientists put out there doesn't mean that the conspiracy theories are true). is it a possible threat to the planet? (yes, read the news) has it changed weather patterns to the extent that it poses a risk? what should we do about it at the local, national and worldwide levels?

these are the questions that you should be looking at, not whether some girl annoys you and you are using this as an excuse to deny the whole issue.

The attempt to bring about a solution by way of force is what I have a problem with. If someone wants to try and address the climate issues that they believe there are then my hope is that they do so voluntarily and don't violate the rights of others in order to achieve that goal. Good ideas shouldn't require such force and the 'greater good' has been used too many times in the name of tyranny.

I think the "rights" of others are confused with the desires of others. No one has the "right" to exploit or pollute a shared resource. there is no political or god given "right" to pollute air that others must breathe or the "right" to claim and sell water from a natural aquifer. These "rights" that you speak of are man made inventions made for the purpose of political expedience and economic greed. They don't take into account all peoples rights to life.

I define life as the ability to sustain oneself through access to what the earth provides freely. air. water. natural medicines found in plants. food grown in non polluted soil. it is not a companies "right" to pollute the earth in order to make money, thus robbing others of the right to breathe, drink and eat uncontaminated food.

so when you say "by way of force", if the government allows companies to pollute the air, they are in turn "forcing" people to breathe contaminated air. they are taking away OUR right to life free from harm. if you need statistics on how pollution causes disease and death, you have only to google.

so before you talk about "rights" and "force", you better define terms about who is forcing whom, and what rights have already been violated for decades with little recourse.

a good idea is to throw out old school thinking, and begin to value to environment for its irreplaceable ability to sustain not just human, but plant and animal life, if it remains in balance.

Your rights end where my freedom begins. Good response torico!

Posted using Partiko Android

Rights are absolutely often confused with desires. Like the right to internet access or the right to healthcare which is a service that is provided by willing participants with skills in that field.

I define life as the ability to sustain oneself through access to what the earth provides freely.

Right, you have no right to infringe violence upon any other.. which includes violating their natural rights and individual liberty from the get-go with the emergence of a system that disregards individual consent. I agree that no one has a right to pollute a shared resource, at least without the authority of those who own the resource, but collective property ownership as we have today through government contributes to the problem and I will never be surprised when property that is collectively owned as such falls into disrepair because someone always expects another individual will take responsibility for the problem and they pass the buck. By saying I don't want gov to solve the problem that doesn't translate into me being a fan of pollution in any way. If someone wants to take care of and be a good steward of the land they are blessed to live on then that is a very respectable endeavor that I would support. Just the same, if someone wants to cut down on their garbage etc then how could that be construed as a negative action? Why use more if you could and prefer to use less? Go ahead, I think it's great to try reusing whatever possible. The same gov that violates our consent every single day and doesn't respect our natural rights, wants to pretend to be a savior of the plant and will use taxes and violence to help protect it?
Give me a break.

If the gov allows them to pollute they are taking away our freedom.. but they have already done that with their establishment from the onset. Your consent is violated and you are forced to participate in a system you don't want to.
✌️

Throwing out old school thinking, the disease that is statism which has been perpetuated for thousands of years now, is exactly what I am all about, which is why I embrace voluntaryism :)

Good ideas shouldn't require such force.

i will agree with you on this, re: govt is a shit show, and yet, we live within the system. we are part of the matrix. any time we vote or obey a law we are buying into the system. we give consent.

..violating their natural rights and individual liberty from the get-go with the emergence of a system that disregards individual consent..

so how do we escape it? we cant just claim government is invalid for everyone because some people want government and believe its important to maintain. the option is to personally denounce government, however that does not solve the problem we have here.

my solution is to do what we should have done centuries ago. recognize the importance of the natural world. give it economic value greater than what it has. make it an uncorrupted commodity to be held in trust for further generations, something that must be sustained, and not sold off as an asset by the government.

if we are only one person doing good while the monster does evil, and uses all of its charm and persuasion to convince others that we are "rebels and terrorists", then we have little chance at success.

its my opinion that we need to become a united group of consent. strategy wise, the best way to address pollution in a timely manner is to make sure the government maintains the environment indefinitely, without loopholes for corporations. a not for profit trust that is unbreakable, that we hold to be above economic manipulation.

we cannot wait until the idea of doing away with government becomes agreed upon. the earth simply might not be able to sustain us that long.

if someone forces you to accept a service, that doesn't quality as consent. A monopoly is not consent.

Most people might not want to escape, so I don't worry about trying to reach that goal and make it happen, I don't believe true freedom is ever going to happen. Most people are not interested in freedom, they are more interested in using the system we have today to be brutal and destructive against those who they don't agree with, unfortunately too many still enjoy watching others suffer who are different from them. It is ultimately a war on ideas and still, statism and collectivism are winning.

It is difficult to get a group or 2 or 3 to agree, let alone billions of people. I think it's little more than a fairtytale to strive toward such an endeavor that everyone might eventually embrace, and using force via government to make sure they comply? Rather a sickening sight.. The government could be construed as the biggest corporation of all and it has no legitimacy in operation so long as it continues to disregard the consent of those to choose whether they want to be a part of it or not, and subjecting them to violence in any way when they choose to exit the system isn't affording them a right to choose whatsoever.

I didn't say we need to wait until gov is gone to start taking action on reducing any contribution to the problem.

I think at this point we just agree to disagree 😉

you talk as tho one persons right to choose is sacred over the needs of the whole. i disagree. this is where the issue is. dont get me wrong, i think that consent is important. but i also believe that life is important, and not just my life, or human life. what about plants, animals, insects.. do they get a choice? if we could ask them im sure they might tell us that they do not consent to us polluting their environment. so when is the right to consent more important than the right to life? what if a murderer does not consent to being arrested or jailed? is that more important than the right to life of the person he killed without consent?

this is where you take libertarianism too far. just because YOU choose to believe in the absolute need for consent doesnt mean that the rest of us should be harmed because we choose a different approach to solving the issue. i choose life as the more important factor.

Your pointless ideology is killing the planet. That is real force.

Posted using Partiko Android

CO2 is a good measure, but it seems to be the only one... barium, aluminium, fibers and metals are worse and not measured.
The reefs ? There are ocean fertilization programs with chemicals (you can look it up) some also linked to geoengineering and radiation from Fukushima on the ocean.
People are just being diverted :x

What I love about steem is the right of everyone to have a voice. Even the people I disagree with. I'm not particularly a Greta fan, but applaud her for getting the discussion out there into the mainstream, where it needs to be. Touche and kudos for that. There are MANY young eco activists doing stunning work, offering SOLUTIONS and helping people create change. But, change for the masses starts with awareness, and yay to Greta for her huge and successful role in that.

I'm not sure calling people out for voting on things we disagree with is the way, though. People have a right to vote the way they choose. That is the beauty of decentralization, steem and no censorship. Their opinion is as valid as mine.

I appreciate you posting this simply to be able to reflect on that reality again.


Leading the curation trail for both @ecotrain & @eco-alex.
Together We’re Making This World A Better Place.

Click Here To Join the manually curated trail "@artemislives" to support quality eco-green content.

ecoTrain

I wanted to post it to call attention to the video and maybe for some of the whales to at least consider their stance and support for the content. There is information that is incorrect in the video and by upvoting and giving attention to it they are spreading incorrect information.

Supporting murdering indigenous people is just as bad as actually murdering them.

It costs $0.00 to not be a terrible piece of shit.

Posted using Partiko Android

  ·  8 months ago Reveal Comment

Hi, @schubes!

You just got a 2.15% upvote from SteemPlus!
To get higher upvotes, earn more SteemPlus Points (SPP). On your Steemit wallet, check your SPP balance and click on "How to earn SPP?" to find out all the ways to earn.
If you're not using SteemPlus yet, please check our last posts in here to see the many ways in which SteemPlus can improve your Steem experience on Steemit and Busy.

I tried arguing with drakos but he is fully absorbed by right wing brainwashing
They all are. Steem is counter culture and as a result most people here feel "victimized" for their "opinions" about how evil people with asperger's are because that's definitely a nuanced and intelligent position.

This community is too far gone. Ignore them and just blast your voice and others that agree as much as you can to make this site not seem like a cesspool to people who come and look.

Posted using Partiko Android

I feel sorry for your ignorance of science and logic. Who needs logic nowadays, it's all about emotions. Young girl bitching emotionally at the UN, oh yes, we MUST listen to her, SHE knows best.

Your strawmanning is so bizarre and in a different reality that it's hard to even process what you're trying to say.

The point is you are the one being brainwashed by the left wing climate change propaganda and emotion, the sooner you realize that, the better. Probably never.

Why do you assume every climate activist is brainwashed by AOC or Greta? We've been posting about it for years dude. It's fucking weird. You need new lines of attack, these make no sense at all.

  ·  8 months ago Reveal Comment

So you admit that you don't actually follow the news and just hop on hype trains without any prep to insult "the left" because it turns you on?

  ·  8 months ago Reveal Comment

Hello @schubes, I totally understand how your feeling when reading your opening description of the post...and the world and its universe keep facing some dangerous issues including climate changes.

Thanks for sharing with us on NaturalProducts.Today and this is our guidelines when using #naturalproducts in your posts.

Regards.