Does the article actually mention that parts of Earth are no longer habitable already, or just that the conditions are moving into that direction? The title of this post seems to indicate the latter.
It says "human activities have breached safe levels for six [out of 9] of these boundaries and are pushing the world outside a “safe operating space” If we are over a majority of the set points but there is no inhabitable area to point to, then maybe the set points are wrong.
It is just a way to quantify something very elusive. The point is we are doing a lot of harm without any consideration for our actions. Profits over all.
Thanks. I had ChatGPT Plus read it and then asked questions. I now understand the problem. It's similar to the methane release from Siberia, a run away effect that can't be reversed. These are other modes of run away effect.
Crossing 6 out of 9 planetary boundaries would not necessarily mean that parts of the Earth have become uninhabitable for humans, but it would signify a very high level of risk for abrupt and potentially irreversible environmental changes. These changes could severely disrupt the Earth's systems that make the planet habitable in the first place.
The concept of planetary boundaries is designed to identify the "safe operating space" for humanity. Crossing multiple boundaries increases the risk of triggering non-linear, abrupt environmental changes on a continental to planetary scale. These could include extreme weather events, loss of freshwater resources, collapse of ecosystems, and other severe disruptions that could make life increasingly difficult for humans and other species.
While I can see that you might experience these as uncomfortable parallels, there is a big difference you could consider: That climate activism is based on scientific research.
The cigarette lobby used science to question the link between smoking and cancer.
Try looking up "Most Doctors smoke Camels" to see how much we can trust the experts who only have our best interests at heart and would never tell falsehoods for a payday
> climate activism is based on scientific research
Yes, but often “based on science” like biopics are “based on real events.” Activism presents no error margin whereas the actual science does, and very often activism extends into alarmism where it presents end of the world scenarios which the science doesn’t present. Activists too often present the future scenarios assuming no adaptation whatsoever, like a flooded Miami where no one has moved to higher regions. The science itself is increasingly skewed too, such as the recent forest fire study where larger drivers of forest fires like arson are ignored in order to make publication more likely.
based on scientific research, much like communism and scientific management and phrenology and racism. meanwhile climate models are not capable of predicting the past given current conditions, produce wildly incompatible results, and operate on a model of the earth that is pathetically simplistic, ignoring cloud coverage (which has 3-20x the magnitude of effects of carbon) solar variability and wind patterns. the world might end as we know it for it is clear that crucial features of the earth are changing at a rapid pace, especially oceanic currents, but it will happen in a way that completely surprised most people, if not climate scientists that are aware of the limits of their models.
> ignoring cloud coverage (which has 3-20x the magnitude of effects of carbon)
This is like complaining that tidal models are useless because they ignore waves, which have a larger effect on water height than tides.
(The same analogy applies to claims of the form "how can we possibly predict the climate decades ahead of time when we can't predict the weather 2 weeks from now")
Racism is real. And crt provides good insight with high degree of predictibility as to how our system of laws work to assist existing racial inequalities.
In any case, this feels like you're building a strawman.
Where are you getting the idea from that "we" are proud of our communication being controlled by a commercial party? I'm pretty sure most people are not proud, but either poorly informed or not willing to make the trade off for more security while losing half their social network.
You can't simply increase hospital staff - these are highly trained people. That's an investment that takes years to pay off. Encouraging social distancing doesn't work, people are tired of it and many either didn't care in the first place or don't care now that they are fully vaccinated.
Many western countries messed up big time by not investing enough into their health care systems or into properly educating their population. So now they're out of options.
I remember it said 1$ from next year onwards and first year was free. May if they weren't not bought out by FB that would have been their option and it would have been a better one. Not sure why any of the lead not start new clone and start charging
We're different people, but I think my friends are just not aware of how their rights are violated and how important privacy is in a digital world. Mainstream media also rarely publishes content related to this issue, so most people have no clue about what happens in this field. Pretty hard to make good judgements if you don't know the details.
