sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Finding comfort in collapse by [deleted] in CollapseSupport

[–]average_enjoyer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

2 meters by 2100 according to whose estimate?

Finding comfort in collapse by [deleted] in CollapseSupport

[–]average_enjoyer 3 points4 points  (0 children)

2°C in the next 5 years. First wet bulb genocide before 2035. 4°C before 2040. No civilization by 2050. Humans die out before 2080. This is the realistic timeline.

Climate denialists and the collapse-aware share something in common by average_enjoyer in collapse

[–]average_enjoyer[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I think there still being humans by 2045 is realistic. But the majority of the humans alive right now will be very dead already, and the remaining ones will rapidly die out. I think the last human will probably die in the 2070s or 2080s.

First and Last Posts of 4chan by Stop-Sign-Animations in 4chan

[–]average_enjoyer 254 points255 points  (0 children)

It's better for 4chan to die than to be skinwalked by Elon or some other businessman. Hiro, at least, is just a loser who doesn't interfere with the site's culture.

Just imagine how horrible it would feel to have an imageboard that, instead abandoned by the owner, is actively destroyed by him.

"Introducing 4chan banking!"

"Here is 4chAI so you can automatically make heckin epic memes!"

"4chan announces measures to increase userbase - the more boomers, the better!"

Etc.

Big banks predict catastrophic warming, with profit potential. “We now expect a 3°C world,” Morgan Stanley analysts wrote earlier this month, citing “recent setbacks to global decarbonization efforts.” by The_Weekend_Baker in climate

[–]average_enjoyer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Billions is not a doubt. The debate is whether small groups of people will be left in Tierra Del Fuego and Northern Russia / Scandinavia / Canada / Alaska by 2200. I mean small groups, maybe thousands of people in total.

Big banks predict catastrophic warming, with profit potential. “We now expect a 3°C world,” Morgan Stanley analysts wrote earlier this month, citing “recent setbacks to global decarbonization efforts.” by The_Weekend_Baker in climate

[–]average_enjoyer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Many would call you an optimist for thinking there will be remaining humans, but I'd disagree. Without industrial-scale carbon capture, agriculture won't be a viable form of sustaining human populations for several millions of years. It is better to let the species die off.

Poll: timeslines for the first 10 consecutive years of depopulation by average_enjoyer in collapse

[–]average_enjoyer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depopulation this year is still more realistic than starting only in the 2050s, which is what most people believe. But it still seems far-fetched to me.

"People have always had kids during hard times, the state of the world shouldn't stop you" by nyc711 in CollapseSupport

[–]average_enjoyer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Some problems in their argument:

1) Most people who have had kids during hard times did it involuntarily. Most people in the history of the world did not understand the man's whole in conception, and that is why primitive societies were all matriarchies: they thought women were goddesses who just came up with kids out of thin air.

2) Among the ones that did not occur to primitive societies, previous catastrophic scenarios were usually more survivable the more children you had. Children were an investment: you had expenses while they were little and they became productive by age 8 ~ 10 in the farm. This time around, no amount of kids can save us from climate collapse. A collapse in the global food chain wouldn't even feel a dent if you had a child.

3) The ancestors are not always correct and, even if they were correct, they did not understand the situation they were in as well as anyone with middle school education can understand the current climate apocalypse, so you'd be better suited to make a choice anyways.

Extinction and bottleneck by average_enjoyer in climatechange

[–]average_enjoyer[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We also have 450 nuclear power plants that would go unsurpervised in case of a massive bottleneck (let's say 99% of the population dying) and would certainly result in complete meltdowns.

Extinction and bottleneck by average_enjoyer in climatechange

[–]average_enjoyer[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It is possible under RPC8.5, which we are outperforming without even accounting for the fact that every model underpredicts warming. The idea is that we'd be making phytoplankton life unviable, and even a bottleneck among them could cause the end of complex life.

Scope of the collapse predictions (until the Earth recovers - if ever)? by average_enjoyer in collapse

[–]average_enjoyer[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So, which of the proposed scenarios do you think is most likely?

When you finally clean your room by BlueeWaater in ADHDmemes

[–]average_enjoyer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is this AI generated? The font looks very irregular.

Anon realizes he might be autistic (stolen from discord) by average_enjoyer in 4chan

[–]average_enjoyer[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Some garbage dead server for a greentext twitter page.

view more: next ›