this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
882 points (98.5% liked)

World News

39096 readers
2413 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

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/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

More than a hundred dolphins have been found dead in the Brazilian Amazon amid an historic drought and record-high water temperatures that in places have exceeded 102 degrees Fahrenheit [38.8 °C].

The dead dolphins were all found in Lake Tefé over the past seven days, according to the Mamirauá Institute, a research facility funded by the Brazilian Ministry of Science.

The institute said such a high number of deaths was unusual and suggested record-high lake temperatures and an historic drought in the Amazon may have been the cause.

The news is likely to add to the concerns of climate scientists over the effects human activity and extreme droughts are having on the region.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Seraph@kbin.social 189 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] ProcurementCat@feddit.de 60 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's worse. The rich want civilization to break, so they can become the new aristocracy - ruling their own countries, having their own armies.

[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 57 points 1 year ago (4 children)

If that’s their plan it’s incredibly stupid. They’re really underestimating the lethality of ecological collapse, and overestimating the ability of their wealth to mitigate it. Their best bet at survival is being holed up in a bunker by themselves living an austere subsistence life with maybe some close family. There’s not going to be anything to rule over.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 32 points 1 year ago (4 children)

In the end, the rich and powerful only live in wealth because of the supply chain and, ultimately, the workers.

If civilization crumbles, so does their little empire.

[–] lobut@lemmy.ca 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What's funny is that in a real collapse. Their skills are the least useful.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 23 points 1 year ago

If that’s their plan it’s incredibly stupid.

It's not, like most things it's a lot dumber and simpler. Rich people don't fight or organize as a class, but they don't need too. The wealthy just have to look after themselves, and by doing so will vicariously establish benefits for other rich people.

I think in regards to climate change the wealthy are experiencing a malicious version of the bystander effect. Where they on some level understand their own endangerment, but expect a higher power to fix it for them.

However, when a government does attempt a fix that is personally detrimental to their financial health, they take it personally and become reactionary.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Anyone who thinks wealthy equals smart should not have a driver's license or be out in public without a handler.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SterlingVapor@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 year ago

They are indeed building huge bunkers in large numbers

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tygr@lemmy.world 168 points 1 year ago (10 children)

If we stopped the economy and stopped all emissions worldwide, this progression would still occur for more than 2 decades.

This is just the beginning for stuff we did since y2k.

By the time we actually make serious change, it will be far too late.

Happy Sunday. Enjoy football.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 36 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Forget the progression.

Getting back to pre-industrial CO2 levels will take millenia if we don't do anything.

If we start spending 50% of our energy budget (and let's say that energy generation magically became all renewables and nuclear starting tomorrow) on scrubbing all the CO2 out of the air, we'll still need over a century to get back to pre industrial levels, and that is not counting CO2 storage and or conversions to (for example) plastics. If we include that too then it'll be multiple centuries.

Let that sink on for a second. No matter what we do, none of us, none of our children, none of our children's children will ever see normal CO2 levels in their lives.

And in the meantime we bake, loads of animals will die, food production will be fucked up, and we'll get mass starvation which likely will trigger war for food resources.

I'm painting a pretty picture, don't I? I do fear it's going to be even worse than what I see right now because until now, most climate change predictions actually turned out worse.

We might stand a chance with atmospheric engineering. Start seeding the upper atmosphere with sulfides. They'll cause acid rain over time, but at least block enough sunlight to stop us from cooking. It's done before (80's pollution, volcanos) and it works and we'll need it sooner rather than later

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

Yeah that's a major thing that people aren't getting. Scientists writing the reports specifically published the lower possibilities because they saw earlier publications get tarred as extremist and ridiculous. So now that we're actually getting consequences everyone is surprised that it's happening faster and more violently than publicly predicted.

[–] Tygr@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

You painted a perfect picture. A wordsmith I am not and loved your version better.

All of us on Lemmy collectively can’t make a fingernail dent into the problem. We have no power to stop it. If we did, we’re labeled terrorists against the economy.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] GreenMario@lemm.ee 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Don't invest in the future, don't have kids. Be here for a good time not a long time. Fuck the world.

[–] GreatBlueHeron@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago

That's kinda where I'm at, but I already have kids, and now they're having kids. I worry about them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sad part is we've more or less figured out on paper how to cut our emissions while retaining a fairly high quality of life. Not perfect obviously and we'll lose a lot of the amenities people in developed countries have gotten used to, but to say the path to sustainability is uncharted is simply not true, and it could have been implemented 20 years ago, it can also be implemented today. But it would require gutting the wealth of the rich, totally overhauling the economy, government, and society as a whole, and everyone from all socioeconomic statuses agreeing that it should be done. So it's basically impossible under capitalism. Most of the upper class/upper middle class people in the West won't even entertain the idea of not owning a car, living in an apartment, or cutting out meat from their diets, let alone the radical changes needed for our species to actually be sustainable.

[–] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

By the time we actually make serious change, it will be far too late.

Optimistic of you to assume that we will ever make serious change.

[–] matter@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

We will, one way or another. At some point simply enough people will have died that we will stop making things meaningfully worse 🤷‍♂️

[–] set_secret@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

2 decades is likely optimistic. 5 is probably more likely. that said at what point do we just reach absolute nihilism and just stop giving a fuck. We're well past the point of no return. Our emissions are still INCREASING despite knowledge that it's going to destroy the liveable planet as we currently know it causing mass extinction events.

If we don't have any sense of urgency at this point, I can't see it starting anytime soon.

Everyday we delay we make it worse. what's worse than catastrophic?

I'll point out we did have a brief decline in emissions during covid and in 2009 during GFC but that was accidental becuse people stopped spending and travelling.

[–] TheDorkfromYork@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm surprised that there isn't an open source guide on how to be an effective eco terrorist and what the most vulnerable global chock points are. People have gone to war over less.

[–] K0W4LSK1@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago

Oh there are some out there just the people who want to go to war over this are poor

[–] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 year ago

What also worries me is that there's a lot of talk about the environment collapsing in a century; however, given how things are going, I'm starting to suspect these people are seeing exponential change and slapping on a more linear approximation to predict what will happen. No one really knows what's going to happen, but we do know that it's happening right now and all we can do is try to protect what's left from the absolutely moronic shitheads that have their heads so far up their ass they look almost normal until they start speaking.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

If we stopped the economy and stopped all emissions worldwide, this progression would still occur for more than 2 decades.

The economy did basically stop for a month in March 2020, and pollution dropped incredibly.

Change is possible. We just don't want it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 85 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's tough to see stuff like this and not think that we are helplessly doomed.

All the flooding... water temps over 100...

And crude oil is like $90 a barrel.

[–] Nudding@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It gets easier to process the more you accept that we are bound for civilizational collapse, due to runaway climate catastrophes.

[–] Slwh47696@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I figure we've got about 10 years of relative normalcy left. After that I feel like the world will be so unstable, famine, wars, mass migration, natural disasters etc. will just cripple humanity

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Depending on what one means by normalcy, we have already started to deviate from it. With it mostly being felt economically, at the moment.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It gets easier to process when you remember you can always just fucking kill yourself when society starts to collapse. So, sit back...have some fun, and remember where the exits are.

[–] Marsupial@quokk.au 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Orrr…

Kill the rich arseholes responsible and use their corpses to fertilise the ground so that we can grow some trees .

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 35 points 1 year ago

Being a gen z anti-capitalist is wanting a revolution for workers rights and to stop the ongoing mass extinction.

Anticapitalist action is environmental action.

[–] chemicalprophet@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I heard some heavy machinery magnate saying it's all a ruse you should come experience the winter they just had in North Dakota...

[–] Railing5132@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

That's been a refrain among the great plains dwellers since I was a kid and the term "global warming" was first ideated. Every winter, some chucklefuck would "lol, I'd like some of that global warmin' right about now!"

And they still do it, while complaining about persistent summer drought diminishing crop yields, bitching about government "handouts", and being the biggest recipients of them in the form of farm subsidies to produce corn that gets shoved into high-fructose corn syrup and spiking morbid obesity across the entire country.

/rant

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FUCKRedditMods@lemm.ee 64 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Nevermind all the birds and insects dying, the crop and literal drinking water shortages. We’re gonna have front row seats to the collapse of civilization as we know it. What a fucked up time to be alive for anyone like me who cares deeply about nature. This shit is ruining my mental health.

Humanity does not deserve to exist. It has been decided, greed is our great filter. If there were 100 people to blame for all of this I could go out and kill them, but 100 million? What the hell can any of us do about that?

We still have the whole republican party denying climate change.. these people are hopelessly fucking greedy and stupid.

[–] bird@aussie.zone 44 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Hear, hear. Something that comes close to to how I feel about us killing our biosphere is a quote from Paul Ehrlich: "What we're losing are our only known companions in the entire universe".

I am so enchanted by all of the weird little lifeforms we are supposed to be sharing our world with. All their amazing intricacies, beauty, and evolutionary history. All of it (but especially birds! Birds are my favourite). It's so alien to me that people don't give a shit and, to the detriment of everything else, only care about looking inwards to other humans.

That was a ramble! Quite sleep deprived and loopy over here.

[–] Hubi@feddit.de 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What we’re losing are our only known companions in the entire universe

That is one hell of a quote and absolutely on point. I'll remember this one.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's too bad there isn't some huge forest somewhere that would be a big carbon sink and help stop the river from getting so warm. I hear there used to be though...

[–] Astroturfed@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (18 children)

I don't want the rainforest to be deforested, but it's kinda fucked up to tell all the South American countries covered in trees they aren't able to do exactly what Europe did. Most of Europe used to be covered in trees 200+ years ago and they deforested it all for industrialization and profit. America cleared untold amounts of fields for farming and building suburbs. Just because this was done before global warming was a real concern we now all feel entitled to tell countries like Brazil they can't do the same. It's basically just the same old story of the west wanting to exploit the developing worlds resources for themselves all over again. Just now the resource is air.

[–] HurlingDurling@lemm.ee 34 points 1 year ago

True, however letting them make the same mistakes just because America or Europe did isn't the right answer either. All 3 regions should be reforested and all push towards deforestation should be stopped.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

While I agree that it's a bit hypocritical, we didn't know what clearing those forests would do in the Renaissance and Industrial Revolution. It wasn't widely known until the post war era. Now that we do know we need to act.

But we shouldn't just tell them they can't do stuff. We should be pouring massive amounts of money into helping them skip over coal, farm vertically, and get away from slash and burn farming.

There's more we can do than just tell them they're being bad.

[–] Astroturfed@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Ya, the whole issue is there's almost zero willingness to help them economically to avoid deforestation. It's much cheaper to just tell them not to and that it's bad.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Happenchance@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's almost like, we as a global entity, need to provide these countries with the resources to protect their environment and still prosper.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] naalo@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

I understand what you're saying, but why is there so little replanting everywhere?

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] AngryMulbear@lemmy.ca 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While this water temp is concerning, the Amazon river is also dammed preventing the dolphins from fleeing to cooler water.

[–] Psythik@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was wondering why they didn't just leave...

So long and thanks for all the fish.

[–] SusheeMonster@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Kinda ironic that Amazon.com is killing its namesake through its carbon footprint

[–] ThePantser@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

They are playing by Highlander rules. There can be only one.

[–] negativeyoda@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago
[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ma'am, this is so horrible. I don't even know what to say anymore.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

On the bright side, Amazon river dolphins are "only" endangered, as opposed to possibly extinct, like some other river dolphins.

load more comments
view more: next ›